Oscar Telecast 2015

The blogosphere will be deluged today with everyone's thoughts on the Oscar telecast so why offer more commentary? Like we need more, right? So let me indulge myself anyway.

I'm not qualified to comment on couture so I'll stick to the show itself, which never seems to please anyone. Everyone offers their two cents on how to fix what most believe to be an excessively long show, but many tune in year after year whether the show is a winner or a dud. I must say I'm sick of hearing the grousing about the telecast. If it really bores, then don't watch; it's as simple as that. For as long as movies are relevant, the Oscars will always be eye-rolling experiences, so why bother griping?

But as Oscar telecasts go, I must say this was one of the worst in this century. I thought Seth MacFarlane's Oscar night was the worst of the lot until I watched last night's telecast. I think Neil Patrick Harris' turn as host will rank as low and for many reasons.

There seems to be a consensus about how good Harris is as an awards show host. His Tony Award hosting has been the talk of the entertainment world for some years so he would seem to be an obvious choice to host the Oscars, right? Well, last night left me wondering; does the Tony audience have lower standards or was last night an aberration for Harris?

I thought the show got off to a rousing start. I liked the opening song number, especially when Anna Kendrick joined Harris onstage. It got better when Jack Black, sitting in the audience, began singing as well, while taking some pokes at Hollywood's excesses in the process. I thought, great, if the rest of the show has the opening number's inspiration and humor, the evening should be a blast. Wrong. The rest of the telecast never matched the opening number's spirit.

I can't imagine anyone wanting to host the Oscars. It takes a special talent to keep a 3 and a half hour show moving along. Billy Crystal was almost incomparable in this regard. So, in some ways, I must not be too critical of any Host or Hostess' performance. But I have to also say that I think the Oscars are better with a comedian or comedienne as host or hostess. Harris lacks a comedian's ability to make a scripted joke seem off the cuff. He also lacks a comedian/comedienne's talent for making gags work.

Another gag that should have been amusing but came off as a desperate attempt at outlandish humor was Harris walking out on stage in his underwear. Somehow the stunt seemed tired; like he was clutching at comedy straws.

His Oscar prediction box, which he returned to all through the evening, wasn't clever or funny and it lacked a pay-off. And it didn't help that the contents were revealed near the end of the show (of course, when else could they be revealed?) when everyone (myself included) wanted the telecast to hurry to its exciting conclusion.

A gag he borrowed from Ellen DeGeneres; walking the aisles, went nowhere, especially when he stopped to ask Steve Carell what actor he would most like to meet. During the exchange, a long, awkward and strange pause ensued, which brought a quick death to what was supposed to be something improvisational.

Harris did take a few well-deserved jabs at the Academy for its lack of cultural sensitivity but too often he made jokes at inappropriate times and worse, ones that were mildly amusing at best.

One thing that's been a bother in the Oscar telecasts for years is how time is capriciously allotted to award recipients on stage. I can understand the winners in major categories not getting piped off stage but what about the Best Foreign Film recipient, Pawel Pawlikowski, who couldn't get another 10-15 seconds to offer extended thanks?

I liked Lady Gaga's tribute to The Sound of Music; songs she sang beautifully and the heartfelt embrace of Julie Andrews afterward. It was the one moment in the entire telecast that paid any kind of tribute to a film from the past. This has become a trend in recent years, where Hollywood film history is given short shrift.

The songs nominated didn't impress me, nor did the performances of said songs; even John Legend and Common were only mildly watchable.

The speeches were okay. But though I was pleased to see Patricia Arquette win Best Supporting Actress for Boyhood, her magic moment was marred by what I call Actor's Cause Syndrome, where the actor or actress can't merely offer thanks but must plug pet causes. It's one thing when an actor mentions the persistence of some physical affliction or world problem related to the subject their film addresses, such as Julianne Moore discussing Alzheimer's in her acceptance speech, but it's an entirely different thing when Arquette uses her moment to make a statement about several causes that had nothing to do with her role in Boyhood. Given the sad fact that Arquette will most likely never be on the Oscar stage again to receive an award (before Boyhood, I hadn't seen her in a movie in literally years), could she not not seize the moment to celebrate her acting achievement? After all, awards don't come around often, even for the most celebrated actors and actresses. And who can remember the causes anyway? I have trouble enough remembering the winners. Actors should learn something from legendary screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky, who once scolded Vanessa Redgrave for turning the Oscar dais into a soapbox by saying (on the Oscar stage) "I would like to suggest to Miss Redgrave that her winning an Academy Award is not a pivotal moment in history, does not require a proclamation and a simple "Thank you" would have sufficed."

The distribution of awards seemed to be proceed as I expected. I didn't have a problem with Birdman walking away with some of the top honors, including Best Picture and Director. Inarritu's film was outstanding and entirely deserving. I also had no problem with J.K. Simmons winning Best Supporting Actor. He distinguished himself for years as a character actor, so a win in an acting category was gratifying to see. I gasped when Eddie Redmayne beat out who I thought were superior performers but he does seem like a charming, unassuming fellow and one day he'll no doubt make me forget his performance in The Theory of Everything. But I'll say the award should have gone to Michael Keaton. I'm also pleased Julianne Moore won; I would have been disgusted had Rosamund Pike won for Gone Girl or Felicity Jones for The Theory of Everything. I wish Foxcatcher had won one of the acting categories but I think it's safe to say the film scared the hell out of movie-goers and the Academy alike.

I still think Interstellar, A Most Violent Year and Foxcatcher should have been nominated in the Best Picture category but fair is rare.

So Harris gave it the old college try but I can't say I want to see him back next year or any year after. Maybe the Oscars should try someone more unpredictable and dangerous, like Sarah Silverman.

Whatever or whomever, one thing that will never change is our capacity to gripe about the telecast. Let's face it, if the telecast were ever scrapped, the nation--and some portion of the world-- would be up in arms. So let it be dull or a disaster...it gives us all something to bitch about the next morning.