Will Jon Stewart bomb as Oscar host?
Smile, David Letterman. You may soon lose your place in the history books as the worst Oscar host ever. The turkey could go to Jon Stewart.
Stewart has the potential of being a catastrophe of Cecil B. DeMille-sized epic proportions when he holds forth on the stage of the Kodak Theatre on March 5. Sure, he's edgy and full of the kind of defiant 'tude that attracts young hip TV viewers, but he's a comic assassin. When Stewart aims his jokes, he goes in for the kill.
That's what Chris Rock did last year when his potshot at Jude Law backfired, causing Sean Penn to rally to Jude's defense by going off script during the ceremony to insist that Jude is "one of our finest actors!" It was a snafu that's still talked about today and one that threatens to haunt Rock for eons.
The reason that Billy Crystal, Bob Hope and Johnny Carson reign as Oscar's greatest hosts is because they joshed affectionately with their peers while never losing a sense of awe for the augustness of the occasion. Can anti-establishment rebels like Stewart, Rock and Letterman get that? It's one thing Chris Rock certainly didn't understand — dismissing the whole occasion as only something those silly gay guys care about.
A great Oscar host is humble while presiding over a moment in history. "Welcome to the Academy Awards," Bob Hope once famously said, "or as it's known at my house, Passover." Another variation on that same gag, but in a different year: "We're all here to celebrate Oscar — or as he's known at my house, The Fugitive!"
Comedians like Jon Stewart exult in their own cockiness, not humility.
A great Oscar host appreciates the fact that he's presiding over Hollywood's family reunion. It's important, for example, to acknowledge esteemed seniors present, like Steve Martin did when he hailed Mickey Rooney in the audience, saying, "Mickey, I'm sorry we couldn't get you a better seat, but Vin Diesel is here."
Ah, just the right touch. An affectionate tweak, not a slap. And the audience — and Mickey — loved it.
When acknowledging the family rascals, it should be done with playfulness. "Roman Polanski's here," Steve Martin once said, "Get him!"
And if certain family members are in a family way, it's important to note so. "As host, I have a lot of duties to do tonight," Billy Crystal said. "If Warren happens to be on stage, if Annette goes into labor, I have to be her Lamaze coach. But she's a pro and I know she'll do it in one take."
Jokes can be savage, even cruel, but only if counterbalanced with affection. In 1981, when the Oscarcast was bumped a day while America waited to see if President Ronald Reagan would survive an assassination attempt, host Johnny Carson took a huge gamble. Knowing that the bedridden ex-actor was watching from his hospital room when the show finally went on, Carson suddenly launched into criticism of Reagan for cutting government spending. He called it "Reagan's strongest attack on the arts since he joined Warner Bros." Shocked viewers watched on in embarrassed silence, which Carson let linger for a painfully long while. Then he winked and said confidentially to the audience, "I'll bet he's up and around now!"
Oscar's chief gag writer Bruce Vilanch once described the perfect host: "It's best to have an insider who the live audience is comfortable with. You don't want them to feel like this is a person you jobbed in."
But that's what Oscar bosses have done this year by jobbing in another cocky New Yorker — much like David Letterman — who has never been chummy with the California film crowd.
Are they crazy?
"Oh, what could Jon Stewart possibly do wrong?" you ask.
Stewart, let's face it, is famous for insulting his hosts — and without an affectionate follow up.
Remember what he said to Tucker Carlson when he appeared as a guest on "Crossfire"? After mocking Carlson for wearing a bow tie, Stewart fumed, "You're as big a dick on your show as you are on any show!"
OK, so Stewart had a private beef with Carlson that fueled his outburst. ("What you do is partisan hackery!" he railed at the "Crossfire" host.) But Stewart had no apparent grudge against the Magazine Publishers of America last September when he agreed to emcee a discussion about magazine humor.
Once underway, no one was laughing when he launched into attacks against Time and Cosmopolitan that didn't end in punch lines.
He told Cosmo editor Kate White, "You clearly have disdain for your readers."
Then he turned on editor Jim Kelly for Time's handling of the Valerie Plame case: "One federal prosecutor says 'let me see your notes' and immediately everyone pulls their underwear over their heads and hands it over! Not only that — Newsweek breaks the story!"
One thousand of those magazines' advertisers watched on in the audience, dumbstruck at the sight of a very unfunny prima donna in meltdown mode.
"I don't consider the print media as relevant," Stewart harrumphed at his hosts who had paid him an appearance fee of $150,000 to lead a discussion about comedy. "I didn't say you weren't important. I just said you were at the kids' table."
Obviously, he wasn't kidding. Stewart's appearance at MPA turned out to be one of the biggest media debacles of 2005.
So considering that, how do you think Stewart will handle his job hosting that big media event out west in March? Can this guy be all warm, fuzzy and cuddly? And convincing at it?
Keep in mind that he didn't do a very good job hosting the Grammys in 2001 and 2002. At least he wasn't too arrogant, though. The Hollywood Reporter described his performance as "hopelessly awkward and uncomfortable."
What in the world? I cannot even believe that this is news worthy. Next, I'll bet you will have an article about who he was wearing. OMG, he had on Ralph Lauren, Ralph is so 2005. And in 2005 we lost alot of troops, so what he is saying is that he does not support our troops and we should not watch his show any longer.
Posted by: Mike | January 06, 2006 at 07:35 PM
Highlights of Jon Stewart's 2006 Oscar hosting gig:
*Brings down house with opening musical number: "Can't Go Wrongsky with Chomsky"
*Calls Charlton Heston a "dick"
*Adjusts bowtie, says "Ngggeeeuu"
Etc.
Posted by: Jim Treacher | January 06, 2006 at 04:13 PM
I have now watched the daily Show fairly consistently for about two years. I have always been impressed by Jon Stewart ‘s quick wit but also his inherent fairness, humility with his guests, and self depreciating humor. He has guests who are very conservative and liberal and is gracious to both because he really does want to find common ground . Your statement that “Comedians like Jon Stewart exult in their own cockiness, not humility” I utterly reject. You may also have missed the concept of irony. That is, not all statements are meant to be taken literally as the truth and may be said for effect or because the individual means the opposite. You clearly missed this concept in your interpretation of Jon Stewart’s comments. The BBC reported recently that irony is cultural and is not understood uniformly in the country. You might want to consult a “cocky New Yorker” for some help.
Posted by: Bob Bowser | January 06, 2006 at 03:53 PM
I watch Stewart's "Global Edition" of his US show on CNN International in France (I also see the Oscars live here) and let me tell you, the man is funny. He is quick, witty and always hits the nail on the head. He can't be worse than Chris Rock who didn't make me laugh once. There will never be another Johnny Carson, but smart, good new blood can be an asset to an otherwise close to boring event.
Posted by: GDG | January 06, 2006 at 02:18 PM
So, if I read your article correctly, the problem with Stewart isn't that he isn't funny, which he certainly is, it's that he might offend the extremely rich egomaniacs in the room with him. Is that it? Ridiculous! Most Americans, probably close to all, like to see people like actors taken down a notch. It's funny. It's deserved. And it does them no harm. I thought Rock's Jude Law bit was the funniest part of the show. Why exactly was he in twelve movies last year? Had his previous films put up big numbers? No. Did the ones he was in last year? No. A great example of a joke that was funny because it was true. Letterman bombed because he wasn't funny, not because he was disrespectful. And Rock's performance was unimpressive because he didn't keep up his Jude Law bit-type irreverance. His stint was quite uneven, and there weren't many more funny moments. Reverence for people who don't deserve it IS NOT the necessary trait of a great Oscar host. Millions of Americans read Gossip mags and hilarious blogs like Defamer because they make fun of actors and their like. There is an audience, a huge one, for what snarky commentators/comics like Stewart do, and if ABC is lucky this choice will lure some of them back to the broadcast.
Posted by: Max | January 06, 2006 at 01:07 PM
David Letterman is an anti-establishment rebel? That's the funniest thing I've heard all day.
What is with all this New Yorker bashing? Heaven forbid someone is born in the largest city in the country.
If you have an "awe" for the "augustness" of the Oscars, you are way too much of an ass-kisser to be hosting.
Posted by: Brian | January 06, 2006 at 12:43 PM
You seem to very off base in regards to the public's perception of Jon Stewart. He is regarded as witty, topical, hysterical, and (for the record) one of the least arrogant performers in the industry. He has a very loyal following, and a staff that truly enjoys working for him. That alone speaks for his ability and character.
Hope your Oscar picks are more on target.
Posted by: Frances | January 06, 2006 at 12:31 PM
I think your interpretation of Jon Stewart's hosting abilities suffers from the myopia that comes with your status as a prominent member of the media. I certainly never even heard of the MPA debacle; if you consider it a bomb, I suspect it's because you were a target. In fact, your post makes you sound almost as bad as an overly self-important Sean Penn did when defending Jude Law. Finally, I think your idea of failure is probably vastly different from the general public's: I believe Chris Rock's appearance boosted Oscar's ratings (but since this is a blog and no one checks facts, I won't stand by that), and to my knowledge, Stewart's critique of Tucker Carlson was generally well-recieved, if only as judged by the number of times the clip was downloaded on the internet. I think your post demonstrates to the insufferable self-importance that members of the media seem to have, which the general public does not share.
Posted by: John Lopez | January 06, 2006 at 11:42 AM
As a film aficionado, it is not surprising that you would be predisposed to dislike Stewart, whose acting experience is admittedly laughable (which he, by the way, said himself last night's Daily Show! So much for his famed 'cockiness'). A less biased columnist might have balanced Stewart's shortcomings by giving credit where it's due: he's funny, topical, and a desperately-needed voice of sanity filling in until the real media decides to do its job. If it's Carson or Bob Hope you want, I suggest you watch re-runs and let the rest of us enjoy living in 2006.
Posted by: Joe | January 06, 2006 at 11:35 AM
Stewart will be a good host. He is smart , quick and aware of the US's image in the world. True, he may not be deferential enough for some some of the old Hollywood honchos.,but his irreverance is just what is needed. Let's just hope the Academy gives Stewart the freedom to do the show the way HE wants to do it and then the Awards Show will be entertaining and maybe even enlightening!
Posted by: Beverly Chassler | January 06, 2006 at 11:32 AM
I was crossing my fingers hoping it wouldn't be Ellen. She bombed on the PrimeTime Emmys. A poor excuse for a comedian, she is almost completetly incapable of ad-libbing, and a quick wit is needed at the Oscars. How anyone could think she would be a good host after her Emmy debacle is beyond me. She is also completely non-political. These are trying times, and a host who knows what is going on in the world is needed. She doesn't even have a modicum of political knowledge. I hope they never pick her.I wouldn't watch if they do.
Posted by: Evan | January 06, 2006 at 10:56 AM
I agree with Steve, the Jude Law thing was funny - and Sean Penn did end up looking rather stupid.
Chris Rock and Jon Stewart are COMEDIANS, everything and anything they say must be taken with a grain of salt. They are here to make us laugh, if they say something irreverent or politically akward - the result to me is that it just isn't funny, I am not going to take offense (seriously) just because they bombed.
Posted by: David | January 06, 2006 at 07:30 AM
Bob Hope was a racist and a homophobe. For this I cite his totally inappropriate comments following the death of Martin Luther King Jr. and the nomination of Chief Dan George as well as some VERY stupid, heartless remarks made at the Statue of Liberty rededication. If that's the kind of host you think Oscar should have, I feel very sad.
Posted by: Sean | January 06, 2006 at 07:22 AM
He'll suck...
Posted by: TorontoTom | January 06, 2006 at 05:10 AM
I don't think that the best Oscar hosts are the ones who suck up to everyone. I think Chris Rock was a very good host, and the hole Jude Law thing, in my opinion, was great, the only one who ended up looking stupid was Sean Penn.
Jon Stewart is a great choice, and I agree with Adam, Ellen would be a great host too.
Posted by: Jon | January 06, 2006 at 04:52 AM
Did you actually see any of those appearances by Stewart? Or are you just hoping none of your readers did? He's never 'harumphed' or 'fumed' in his life. You don't like him, and that's fine...little dogs always yap at big dogs.
Posted by: Steve | January 06, 2006 at 02:35 AM
I think Ellen would've been better, but this could be a good year for Stewart to do it.
Was it Bob Hope or Johnny Carson who cracked the joke, "I see a lot of new faces here tonight... especially on the old ones"? THAT was funny. I think it was Carson. He really was the best.
Posted by: Adam Keller | January 05, 2006 at 11:30 PM