So much for going with a pair of “hip” actors as the hosts at the 83rd Annual Academy Awards.
At more than three hours in length, Oscar telecasts rarely receive rave reviews. But for all the disappointing ceremonies from the past few years, few featured performances as widely-panned as those from hosts Anne Hathaway and James Franco. Totally out of place on stage, the two actors utterly failed to keep the often-messy show on track. More importantly, the two actors utterly failed to entertain.
Insofar as the hosts rely heavily on the writers for their material, it might seem unfair to place the blame for the atrociously-unfunny material on Hathaway and Franco. They were given very little with which to work, and even a comedic genius would have struggled to consistently elicit hearty laughter from the abysmal source.
But the criticism of the two hosts goes beyond a few bum jokes. It instead speaks to their total lack of suitability for a broadcast of this caliber. They simply did not click in this environment, and when the telecast is already being dragged down by totally absurd and painful appearances from Kirk Douglas and disastrous awards speeches from Melissa Leo, the hosts are the ones who need to “save the show.” Adding to the misery was the fact that the award revelations were utterly predictable–while it is somewhat unfair to get mad at an awards show for predictability (after all, films, cast and crew become frontrunners for a reason), it would have been nice to see an upset more significant than favorite Tom Hooper beating slightly-bigger favorite David Fincher for Best Director. With so many stale acts, so few successful vignettes and so little intrigue in the awards announcements, the show really needed Franco and Hathaway to step up.
To Hathaway’s credit, she came across as genuinely likable and did seem to be putting forth a legitimate effort. Unfortunately, she just did not have the presence or credibility to be effective in this role.
Given the constraints of the Oscars environment, there are two molds that can produce a successful host–it can be a remarkably, multi-talented performer who can captivate the room (ie Hugh Jackman) or it can be a veteran who has such credibility and recognition amongst his peers that he can make the crowd eat up his every word (ie Billy Crystal). Many awards shows are welcoming of biting, new-age comedians who have no interest in sucking up to the live crowd, but recent failures with that kind of prototype suggest the Academy Awards audience might be a bit too uptight for that type of performer.
Hathaway is a decent actress, a charmer and a very elegant beauty, but she is not especially blessed with talents that lend themselves to a big stage. And as an actress who is continually working to develop standing within the Hollywood community, she does not come across as an “authority” or someone who will tell the body of A-list actors “how it is.” Throughout the performance, it seemed that she was simultaneously awe-struck to be on stage and desperately looking for the approval of her acting peers. She never “owned” the situation and established herself as a standout in the room. Without that confidence and presence, one cannot come across as an effective host–they are basically just a presenter or time-filler.
Franco definitely has the inherent comedic chops needed to have fun with a gig like this, but his image has been stretched so thin that he could not find a voice that clicked in the Oscar environment. In recent years, he’s portrayed himself, at the very least, as a stoner comedian, as eye-candy for older women and as an “artistic” actor. He might be talented when focusing on any one of those personas, but in trying to put forth a big, defined personality that would command the room as an Oscars host, he totally failed. He was never sure what he wanted to accomplish, and the result was a totally muted performance that added absolutely nothing to the telecast. The fact that his heart did not seem into it and the fact that he and Hathaway had such minimal chemistry only made things worse.
As truly talented performers who audiences WANT to like, Franco and Hathaway are unlikely to suffer any permanent image loss from this performance–their stars will still shine brightly. But it would be baffling if the two ended up appearing on future awards show short lists; they could not have been more ill-suited for the role.
Of course, even Billy Crystal, one of the aforementioned successful hosts, had trouble clicking with the material. His entire appearance felt phoned in and unnecessary. And while the Bob Hope bit was fun, how much of that fun was due to novelty–would that kind of material have really worked if delivered fresh in 2011?
There were other weird moments; Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis had some unfunny interplay regarding Timberlake being Banksy, with the two reflecting far too little chemistry to suggest their “Friends with Benefits” will be a must-see movie. Aaron Sorkin confidently spoke through the “acceptance speech warning music” as if the concept of a time limit did not exist.
In terms of highlights, Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law engaged in some funny banter prior to announcing the special effects winner, while Sandra Bullock used her infinite charm and appealing sense of humor to make the often-insincere “salute” to the Best Actor nominees come across as interesting.
But on the whole, the 83rd Annual Academy Awards made for a terrible telecast. James Franco and Anne Hathaway made for abysmal hosts.