Oscarcast: The labyrinth of pans
If you thought the Oscarcast, clocking in at 3:47 seemed even longer, you were not the only one. Overall, the leading television critics were less than impressed with producer Laura Ziskin's sophomore effort and Ellen DeGeneres' debut as host.
In Variety, Bryan Lowry writes, "This year's Academy Awards ultimately proved a stately if unspectacular-bordering-on-dull affair, with DeGeneres' traditional shtick feeling a trifle small for the industry's biggest stage." For Paul Brownfield of The Los Angeles Times, "watching the Oscars was like going to a museum and plunking down an extra 20 bucks for the audio tour. The emphasis was on experiential enhancement through the miracle of knowledge. Or, failing that, apocryphal-sounding factoids." As Tom Shales of The Washington Post denounced the show as "alternately a bore and a horror," adding, "virtually everything about the Oscarcast, except for a few mercifully brief features, was entirely, punishingly too long." Ouch!
Bill Goodykoontz at The Arizona Republic was slightly kinder: "You know it's going to be a long night when Al Gore's the funniest person in the room. DeGeneres didn't help. She didn't hurt, either, not exactly. She wasn't bad. She just sort of . . . was. Safe as milk, and every bit as exciting." Brownfield found her wanting when compared to her most recent predecessors. "Chris Rock and Jon Stewart, the last two experimental hosts, came with a little danger, armed with male writers who hate Hollywood; Ellen comes bearing tolerance and yuks, trailing a whiff of patchouli." And Barry Garron of The Hollywood Reporter thought, "DeGeneres, through true to her kinder, softer brand of humor, got too silly at times. And the show, which feels bloated under the best of circumstances, ran 20 minutes long despite rigid enforcement of the 45-second rule for acceptance speeches."
As Alessandra Stanley summarized the show's problem in The New York Times, "The Academy Awards are the one night when Hollywood struts and preens as if nothing is bigger or more powerful than the movie business. Yet the selection of Ms. DeGeneres, the first daytime talk-show host to serve as the master of ceremonies, was a reaffirmation of television as the dominant water-cooler medium."
So, what is the solution?
(Photo: ABC)
Several TV critics suggested turning to another comedian who made an all too brief appearance on the telecast. Lowry lamented, "(w)hen Jerry Seinfeld presented best documentary, referring to the five "incredibly depressing" nominees, he instantly made you wish he was hanging around a little longer." And Aaron Barnhart of The Kansas City Star thought, "his two bits — the other was a classic Seinfeldian rant against movie theaters that ask patrons to pick up their trash — were more memorable than anything said or done by the show’s putative lead comedian, host Ellen DeGeneres."
But can any host overcome the constraints of presenting two dozen awards, not to mention the honorary ones when the TV audience only cares about the top few?
As Lowry notes, "(a)s is so often true, the show also exhibited a peculiar sense of time management -- rushing through certain promising elements and awkwardly lingering on others. Nor did it help in terms of getting the evening rolling that the first 50 minutes were devoted strictly to lower-profile categories (art direction, makeup, animated and live-action shorts, sound editing, sound mixing) before viewers saw their first recognizable winner, Alan Arkin for "Little Miss Sunshine." Garron did give Ziskin an A for effort if an E for execution: "Never before has a producer put so much thought and effort to breathe life into the long and dull string of awards that precede the ones for which nearly all viewers tune in." And Mick LaSalle of The San Francisco Chronicle thought, "(t)his year's program was even more interminable than usual, with lots of filler, including interpretive dances and a sound effects choir. Does anybody want to see stuff like that? Does anybody really believe anyone wants to see it? The answer is no, probably no in both cases, so why the same nonsense, year after year? The most telling moment came when an announcer, four hours into the program, said, "Now it gets interesting."
There were a few critics who liked the host but even they gave the overall show a collective thumbs down. For AP, Frazier Moore writes, "(t)easing but unassuming, DeGeneres is always pleasant company. Like her, the evening was easygoing, comfortable and reliably unsurprising. It was all very comfortable, but too often bordering on the dull, even dreary." And Matt Roush in TV Guide thought, "(k)eeping her cool, and her genuine aura of chipper goodwill, throughout three costume changes (in suits from red velvet to all-white to royal blue) and what seemed once again like an overindulgent excess of movie montages (we definitely could have done without Michael Mann’s fuzzy survey of cinematic American history), Ellen was welcome nearly every time she popped up. Offering a spec script to Martin Scorsese, directing Steven Spielberg on how to take her photo with Clint Eastwood, asking the megastars in the front row to lift their legs as she vacuumed the Kodak past midnight (ET), while informing us that Helen Mirren had just asked for a rum and coke (sounded pretty good to me at the time), Ellen did her darndest to deflate the bloat and pomposity that infects nearly every Oscar telecast."
Roush was one of the few who found lots of things to like in the telecast: "There’s no question this year’s show went on way too long, but that’s nothing new. This was still a classier event than most, and at least there were many creative moments to capture our fancy, from the shadow art of the Pilobolus dance troupe to the choir that sang in sound effects. The sensational “Comedian at the Oscars” number (co-written by the reliable Marc Shaiman), featuring Will Farrell, Jack Black and John C. Reilly, helped elevate the first hour, which was heavy on the “boring” awards we usually are forced to sit through during the show’s middle portion."
And Tom Maurstad of The Dallas News thought "one of the biggest surprises at the 79th annual Academy Awards was what an entertaining show it was. And while it may have been no surprise to Ellen DeGeneres' fans how funny she was, she also proved to be the perfect foil for a night that so often sinks under the weight of its pretentious airs and self-importance." Perhaps Mike Duffy, of The Detroit Free Press, summed it up best: "DeGeneres was everybody's Oscar pal. She worked the aisles later in the telecast, amiably chatting up folks like best director nominee Martin Scorsese, sparking good-natured laughs when she tried to hand him a movie script. But even Ellen's agreeably sweet 'n' funny disposition couldn't mask the annual slow poke, hit-and-miss reality of the Oscars as TV entertainment."




I liked Ellen a lot, she seemed confident. I more disturbed by the assessment that Jon Stewart was a failure; I thought he was pretty funny. His only problem was that he seemed nervous.
Posted by: WS | February 26, 2007 at 08:56 PM
People who don't want to watch the technical awards, etc, should simply not watch the Oscars. Editors, sound technicians and cinematographers contribute as much, and sometimes more, to the success of a film than actors. The show has always been, and will always be, long. It's only once a year, so I don't see what the fuss is all about if the show is long.
Ellen was a very good host. I agree that is ridiculous that Oscar winners are cut off during their speeches when time is given to someone like Jerry Seinfeld (who is not even a movie actor, and was not even very funny) or for the silly sound effects choir. The purpose of the show is for people to be presented awards, and for us to hear what they have to say when they win them.
The Dreamgirls number was amazing, and a reminder of why it should have been nominated for Best Pic.
Posted by: Robert | February 26, 2007 at 08:46 PM
I am a huge fan of Oscar and his show but this year I was truly bored. Something has to be done. Many awards need to be handed out prior to the show and just recapped for the main broadcast. Cut the show to a max of 2 1/2 hours!
What the heck was Celine Dion doing??
Posted by: Bruce Roger | February 26, 2007 at 07:29 PM
It's not that hard to fix this show...
First off, like the Grammys, move all the tech awards off show to before the broadcast. Yes, we all know that sound editing/mixing, film editing and make-up are very important, but let's be brutally honest here. Who else cares about these awards other than the winners and the hundred or so (or even fewer) people who do the same thing for a living?
Second, schedule commercial breaks after each award. This way the producer can cut to an ad the moment a winner starts to drone on with the thank yous. This gives the home audience a break, and allows the honoree to prattle on thanking his agent and gardener for a few more moments.
Third, go back to sprinkling in the nominated songs and film clips from the five best picture nominees throughout the show. They tend to break up the monotony, and remind viewers what is up for the awards this year.
There is no reason on earth this show should run longer than two hours, thus giving ABC back a half hour for the red carpet arrivals (which all the celeb watchers really want). A shorter broadcast should also help provide both the Academy and the network a stronger base to rebuild a bigger national audience from.
One final wish, please send George Pennachio back to the secondary media markets he belongs in. What an unprofessional embarrassment this guy is as an entertainment reporter. Nothing personal GP, you're just out of your league here.
Posted by: Al | February 26, 2007 at 04:13 PM
I TOTALLY disagree with Alessandra Stanley. Ellen, unlike previous hosts, wasn't playing to the millions of viewers who were tuning in on TV. Her attention was completely focused on THE CROWD in attendance at the Kodak Theater, and keeping THEM entertained. Let's face it, Hollywood isn't as liberal or as avant-garde as most people perceive it to be. The showbiz elite do not want to go to an awards show to have barbs thrown at them or to be forced to laugh at humor they consider vulgar. Athough Ellen's jokes came across on screen as rather tame, they clicked with the audience, making them feel comfortable. She CONNECTED with them. And that's what they really want, to relax and have a good time.
Posted by: C C | February 26, 2007 at 02:03 PM
What ever happen to the days that the host actually HOSTED!? You see Ellen for the first 20 mins or so and then don't see her again fo another half hour and then it's backstage talking to some stage hand eating a pretzel. When OH when are the producers going to listen to us and get rid of those BORING montages. The Dreamgirls number was FANTASTIC. This show can be produced easily in 2 hrs. Look at the Golden Globes!
Posted by: Terry S. | February 26, 2007 at 01:51 PM
Ellen was nice, pleasant--non-threatening to the celebrities--no Uma Oprah and what not. So I guess to spice things up next year..the academy should have Rosie O'Donnell (an unpleasant, butch-mean lesbian) and Donald Trump (it's all the about the hair) as hosts--that would be a riot! Or maybe Barbara Walters and her View co-horts...that way we don't have to endure her Oscar specials after the awards. But then again, Joy Behar and Elizabeth "Repuke" Hassleback or whatever? just will annoy the sh*t out of viewers really just as much as Rosie....Well please let's not consider Jerry Seinfeld--I hate pompous, unfunny, so called comics....Stephen Colbert might be a fun touch though with Jon Stewart...whaddya say Academy?
Posted by: Frankie R. | February 26, 2007 at 12:37 PM
BAD:
1- The honorary Oscars were wayyyyyyyyyyyy too long.
2- Time was so short so they cut J. HUD off but let Jerry go on a long monologue not even concerning the award he was presenting?
3- Whoever was backstage, that guy, OMG I was so embarrassed for him. It was painful to watch.
4- Celine was unbearable
5- What the hell was that video Will Smith introduced? did it have a purpose?
6- The effects choir, while cool, was too long and who cares?
7- Maggiebaby, WHY WHY she was boring.
GOOD
1- The shadow things were AMAZING
2- Ellen was safe, but good
3- J. HUD blew Beyonce off the stage (not that Beyonce wasn't good). The Dreamgirls performance was excellent, Bill Condon's way of saying up yours to the Academy
4- Forrest Whitaker had a good speech for once!
5- I liked the set
6- I think the way the did the costumes was excellent
7- Sexy People
Posted by: AJ | February 26, 2007 at 12:21 PM