At least - and it's a big AT LEAST - it's not like professional or college sports, where everyone getting a moment on camera after winning Division III runner-up for best 6th man (or woman) finds it obligatory to praise Jesus.
Thank God that doesn't happen at the Oscars.
4
The Oscar ceremony is on the brink of oblivion as TV fare, and the people who entertain us as their chosen profession, cannot surrender one of the most excruciatingly boring practices ever created by the mind of man. I long ago started recording the thing, but finally gave that up, too. The rub is not only that the exercise is boring. Doing so knowing that it’s boring displays contempt for the watching audience.
Maybe the declining ratings for the Oscars is symptomatic of the revolution that is fast rendering Hollywood itself obsolete. Who has any need any more for this isolated enclave of ego-driven narcissists, when you can make movies and stream them totally outside Hollywood’s domain? Have fun, you name-listing dinosaurs. Your extinction is close at hand.
2
Academy awards every year is no longer valid. The movies just are not good enough. And there are too many other award shows to make the results at all important. The Oscars should be more like the Olympics. Maybe every two or even three years. That way, there might actually be a "Best Movie." And they should get rid of Best Actress and just have a Best Actor award that includes male and female roles. That change would do more for women in the movie industry (ie. more roles, better roles) than any #MeToo-like movement. As for cutting out the thank-you-drear from the winners, after a two- or three-year spell, we might actually want to hear from them.
1
If they could find someone with the class, personality and wit of a Johnny Carson or Bob Hope...then yes, they do need a host!
1
Joe Peschi did it best: "Thank you" - and then he was done.
Gratitude is actually a good thing.
1
This was the best "entertainment" article the NYT has run in 10 years !
2
The former employees of the Market Theater (once an indie/"art film" venue in Seattle's historic Pike Place Market, now site of the renowned Lower Post Alley "Gum Wall") will celebrate our 34th Annual Oscar Party this year. Why? Because we still enjoy the ritual -- and, above all, one another's company. Or, to quote from George A. Romero's "Dawn of the Dead" (1978) -- never nominated! -- when someone sees zombies converging on a shopping mall: "It was once an important place in their lives."
I still remember when Billy Crystal hosted and I didn't want to miss the beginning of the Oscar broadcast because of the wonderful montage of movie spoofs he'd perform - pure gold. Since then the hosting has gone downhill. Why other hosts can't be found who are entertaining is beyond me. It must be the fault of whoever is producing these overblown events that they've become boring and predictable. As for the speeches, I'm lucky to be living on the west coast where I can tape the broadcast at 5PM and watch it later fast forwarding through the endless thankyous and numerous commercials - pure platinum.
Thank you for this article. I have quit watching the Oscars because of the acceptance speeches. I get they're thrilled because their career trajectory gets a boost. And having struggled for years it's a huge validation. And certainly, behind the scenes personnel give great value. But really, do I need to hear the kids can now go to bed, Daddy won? Or lists of unknown names that supposedly guided their determination? Or a marriage proposal? Acceptance speeches are playing to the room for their next job. By being the most tearful or political the more their chances of appearing on all the news and entertainment after shows. In other words, staged. Three editors thanking their families? Take them to Disneyland. Seemingly, the less well known the recipient the longer the speech.
Of course they're grateful, millions of dollars are at stake. I just don't want to listen to their sales pitch.
How about just showing the walk up to collect the statue and maybe their first sentence then cut to the next award. For those purists who do need every gushing breath, stream the entire show on one of the many sites.
This is not about a particular film or member. Nor is it a complaint or compliment. It is about the anachronism of the broadcast, the meaningless struggle to achieve the kind of ratings that the show once was able to command and the resulting loss of prestige and respect that the arts and crafts of film making suffer thereby.
So here are my unsolicited suggestions.
Stream the show. Either on an existing platform or on one of your own creation. Charge a nominal fee to watch it. Educational institutions and arts organizations can be exempt as can any other organizations you choose. It can be as long as it needs to be. Advertisers will probably still be willing to engage but they won't be saddled with network restrictions and neither will participants. The glitz and glamour can be left up to the participants. I'm sure it's no secret that the vast majority of people working on a film don't show up for work in Versace or McCartney. The shedding of the glamour requirement could also go a long way toward fending off the elitism complaint heard so often among the civilian population.
Expand the categories. Finally mention stunt performers in more than just the In Memoriam bit. You could really dig in more deeply into the day to day labor of making a film. It's changed somewhat since 1929.
A true celebration of film making excellence needn't be mounted as a paean to the shallowness of mere celebrity.
Those of us who love film and film making would be grateful.
1
Thanking a long list of people shows how unimaginative and inarticulate actors are when they don't have their lines written for them. They really should thank the script writers and no one else.
3
@mjb But their "thank yous" are usually written down on a piece of paper too, which they whip out of their jackets or dresses (usually right after they say "this is such a surprise").
1
Hosting Tony or Grammy Awards, Rosie O'Donnell implored winners to keep acceptance speeches brief. "And you don't have to thank God. He knows."
2
The Academy Awards were originally devised to showcase the work of the major studios (MGM, Paramount, Warner Bros., Universal, RKO, Columbia and, later, 20th Century Fox). That was its purpose. An industry-sponsored event to promote the products of that industry. The documentary and short subject categories promoted the documentaries, live-action shorts and cartoons that were made by the studios on a regular basis. Once the studios stopped making documentaries, shorts and cartoons, approx. 50-60 years ago, and theaters stopped showing short subjects, those categories increasingly went to films that never played theatrically and went unseen by the overwhelming majority of the moviegoing audience. At that point those categories should have been dropped completely. I can see keeping the Documentary Feature category, but restrict nominees only to those documentaries that got a substantial theatrical release and not just an Oscar-qualifying run for one week in L.A. at the end of the year.
3
I read all these negative comments about the Oscars and it makes me depressed. Just another expression of how humanity has become judgmental of everything.
Every host is crucified after the show for how bad they did hosting(no wonder no one wants to host). The actors are called superficial for thanking their loved ones and those that helped get them the role that won them the award. Yet, we need movies and television to tell the stories of everyone, to be the voices of those that can not tell their stories.
Please stop with the negativity about the Oscars or other award shows. There are more pressing things going on in the World that deserve your negative commentary.
5
@Toots I consider myself to be a pretty smart guy. I am actually capable of commenting negatively on the Oscars while at the same time: enjoying the Super Bowl a few weeks ago; wondering who all these people are at the Grammys (except for Diana Ross, one of the few who has talent); despising Robert Kraft for being an ("alleged") idiot and ruining the spotlight of all his players that work so hard for him; and of course being completely upset by the person running the country.
I guess what I'm saying is, I reserve my right to say the Oscars stink, especially when they do. That's not being "judgemental", that's called "using good judgement".
1
I remember reading that at the Oscar nominees' luncheon the first thing told to all the nominees is to NOT bring a list of names with them to the podium if they win -- it's bad TV (as this article has made abundantly clear) and it also makes them look arrogant, since they must have expected to win to write all those names down.
It's the FIRST thing they are told by the producers of the event!
Obviously most nominees don't listen, or listen and think, well, that can't mean ME.
But imagine you are that makeup artist or that hair stylist or that publicist watching at home and hearing your name said out loud on network television. Hopefully you're taping it and can relive that moment over and over again.
Yes, it's boring TV, so maybe cut them some slack and think it's the actor or actress getting in touch with their inner Boy or Girl Scout to "be prepared," as opposed to narcissism. It's sharing their joy with some of the unsung heroes who helped them achieve this level of success --
So if it happens tonight during the broadcast, imagine those being thanked jumping up and down with their friends and family and screaming with happiness at the sound of their name. It still might be bad TV for you, but not for them.
And if by any chance you are one of those unsung anonymous behind-the-sceners reading this who might get thanked tonight, tape yourself watching in case your name gets mentioned.
Then post it. I, for one, would LOVE to see it.
5
Who among us hasn't spent at least one shower holding the shampoo bottle aloft and rehearsing their Oscar speech. I'd be sure to thank my Key Grip and my Gaffer.
4
Louise Fletcher sending a message in sign language to her deaf parents ("you are seeing my dream come true") and Ingrid Bergman charmingly praising fellow nominee Valentina Cortesa ("I'm sorry, Valentina, I didn't mean" to win) are enough reason to keep the speeches in . . . Occasionally (very occasionally) there is gold. BTW, those years were respectively, 1976 and 1975.
5
"...rumors of a Hollywood skin-deep state..." best line in the piece
9
Until they enact the No-Thanks Amendment, I will be forced to tape it in order to skip all the fluff. .
1
Nah. Those speeches are the best part, the only one besides the actual award that generates news. Get rid of the music numbers though, and fast.
5
Why even watch if the winners don't get one minute to say something about their achievement? My main hope this year is to see a Spike Lee acceptance. I hope he gets a standing ovation. Why not just line them up in their fancy outfits and send them in like cattle to accept their trophy while the visual tag line shows nominees and winners, so it can be live tweeted? A super expensive parade of robots, awe-inspiring.
4
Thank you greatly. I appreciate this honor. Smile at audience and gracefully walk off stage. That sums up my advice for all winners.
1
I like going to the movies. I don't watch the Academy Awards but I do think the NYTimes spends WAY too much print on them. WAY WAY too much. They are just not that interesting. There is a lot more going on in the Arts that the Times could cover.
9
@TimesReader Click on the links to the left and look at the "Arts" section: there are TEN sub-sections. TEN. Only one of them is "Movies", and even accounting for some overlap of Movies into those other sections, that's a whole lot of "more going on in the Arts" that the Times is actually in fact covering for you. They aren't forcing you to read Academy Awards coverage, and they aren't preventing you from reading all the other coverage.
7
Maybe it’s time to let the old ways die. Miss America, the Academy Awards and dropping the ball on New Years Eve all need to acknowledge that the 1950s are over and stop.
11
Who can deny or envy the luvvies right to a love-in?But the rest of us do not have to watch or even notice.
3
Each year we see a dwindling number of viewers with a who- cares attitude. We continue to lose interest in the congratulatory self promotion of those who live in their insulated world, far removed from the day to day lives of the average person.
7
Bring back Johnny Carson. . . or Jack Lemmon. Andy Serkis could do the physical performance part, using the real-time motion-capture innovated to make "Avatar 2, 3, 4."
2
While we're at it, let's just get rid of awards. Process of making a film and engaging in one's craft should be reward enough.
7
Funny stuff, Mr. Mehlman! Well done. I love the Academy Awards, ever since I was quarantined with Mononucleosis, age 16... Memorized top 5 honors since 1929. Lots of time on my hands. Haven't been inclined to do so since, but the awkward speeches when the orchestra plays is sometimes priceless... Don't give a rip who the winners thank. It's their moment (or more) and I already spent ridiculous ticket sales to put them there, so I'm complicit. It's a partnership. Besides, gives me time to turn over my bacon-wrapped scallops in another room.
8
High point: Bette Midler presenting the award for Best Song after HER movie "The Rose" was not nominated, and saying "Endless Love, from the endless movie 'Endless Love'." This would have been what, like 1979?
Low point: after numerous people were cut short, Gwyneth Paltrow (who was wonderful in "Shakespeare in Love") getting unlimited screen time to thank everyone she'd ever met or been within 20 feet of. (Granted this is by no means a unique occurrence, it's just the one that sticks in my mind. Sorry, Gwyneth. Love your work.)
Best speech I never saw: Maureen Stapleton (best supporting actress 1982 for "Reds"): "I'd like to thank [blah blah blah, the usual director-agent-family]... and everybody I ever met in my entire life." (I just googled it and it's not as succinct as I thought, but it's still pretty good.)
2
Oscar winners have the opportunity to say something profound, give a message of hope, make an astute observation, be amusing, or serious, or demonstrate simple humility. Surely actors are more creative than to deliver a pointless listing of names (thanking one's lawyer?). I have no respect for those who say they "don't prepare acceptance speeches," or ridicule those who bring to the podium a paper from which to read. Preparation is the mark of maturity. How about finding a way to express gratitude with grace and eloquence. Say something worth listening to. Look to Glenn Close for inspiration!
7
"The Artist" will be remembered and watched and loved long after most of this year's sound films! Thanks again to Oscar-winning director Michel Hazanavicius, to actors Jean Dujardin (Oscar), Berenice Bejo, John Goodman, and Uggie the dog, and even to whomever turned on some sound for the spectacular song and dance conclusion.
3
@Ekaterina Jones: I've already forgotten it.
We will skip Oscar for the first time since I was a kid. It is increasingly an event for industry insiders who vote for their friends and whoever best showcases their particular craft. Fine, nothing wrong with that, but then don't wonder why nobody is watching.
3
It could be cut down to an hour if they would just announce the winners of the five big awards: best actor and actress, supporting actor and actress and best film. Winners walk to the stage, say thank you and leave. Other award winners could be announced at a dinner before the show. It’s as simple as that.
2
How about borrowing the format from the Kennedy Center Honors awards? Have the nominees stay in their seats and while a presenter performs some sort of tribute or explains why the win was deserved.
11
Funny commentary; snarky but mostly true.
For a majority of viewers, I’d bet the most entertaining moments of The Oscars broadcast remains:
1) The opening number by the host,
2) The fashions worn to the event (aka the glamour element),
3) Performance of beat song, and
4) A moment to see celebrities perform as themselves instead of in an interview or movie role.
It’s these acceptance speeches I personally enjoy the most, even though the majority are mundane, there’s usually one that makes enduring the entire the spectacle worthwhile.
I stopped watching the show though, not because of its length, but because somewhere the it lost its glamour. Trying to censure or limit the acceptance speeches may have been the moment when the awards began to lose their glamour. Did censorship of Hollywood’s royalty take some of the gravitas out of celebrity?
Removing acceptance speeches won’t restore the glamour of the event. Neither will adding more contenders for Best Picture.
If time has to be limited, the Academy may want to consider cutting the broadcast of awards given to films the general public no longer have easy access to see themselves - such as animated or live action shorts.
But maybe glamour is never to be retrieved. Perhaps we’ve all become so jaded it’s best to end the televised event all together. Relegate it to a time before Social Media, Attention Deficit Disorder, Political Correctness, Fake News, and other widespread social ills...?
3
As if anyone actually cares who wins (look up boxofficemojo to see how little [count in coins] “Roma” has made), just look online after the show to see all the winners without endless commercials.
2
To those who say the show is mostly pablum, I agree.
To those who say it shouldn't be watched because nothing happens, two words: Frances McDormand.
8
1. Run up to podium in state of shock
2. Tell everyone you didn't expect to win
3. 'Share' award with all other nominees
4. Make political statement for cause du jour
5. Thank everyone from director down to your kids' babysitter
6. Fist pump your Oscar in the air while exit music plays you off
7. Immediately begin Tweeting to explain or retract your political statement
I stopped watching a few years ago.
And I thought ‘Roma’ was a colossal bore.
11
If you thought Roma was a colossal bore then there’s no help for you. Roma was the best movie I’ve seen in at least a decade. But then you probably weren’t able to follow or because of the subtitles, or perhaps the semi-biographical nature of the film was lost on you, or perhaps you yourself are a bore. No worries, mate, you won’t be missed.
3
@NativeNYer4Ever
You appear like Eustace Tilley.
2
@David G.
...and every year the camera is [endlessly] on Jack Nicholson in the front row, behind his sun shades, laughing hysterically.
4
I remember when The Beatles won the Oscar for Best Original Song Score for their film "Let It Be." Paul McCartney was at the ceremony with his wife Linda. When the winner was announced, Paul walked up to the stage with Linda, accepted the award and said "Thank you" and walked off the stage with Linda. Best Oscar speech ever in my opinion.
13
@susan As I recall, none of the Fighting Four were present at that ceremony. This happened during the height of their post-breakup acrimony. The award itself ended up on a shelf in the office of Allen Klein, whose hiring was the trigger for the beeakup.
1
@Nina - You're wrong. Paul was there with Linda. Perhaps you can find video of it on YouTube.
2
@susan It was the 1971 Grammys, not the Oscars.
4
If the Oscars weren’t aired, would anyone notice? Let’s try that and see how it works.
10
But, I need to hear Rami Malek mention Freddie Mercury.
5
Rami needs a 2nd Freddie movie: Barcelona!
1
Mr. Mehlman--I will thank you for correctly referring to those of us who live here as "Michiganders" and NOT "Michiganians."
3
@Anne --- Are those who live in mega mansions west of Hollywood by the ocean properly called Malibites or Malibonians?
As an obsessed movie buff from a very early age, I had always anticipated the yearly Oscar awards telecast with great anticipation. That has waned considerably in the past couple of decades. Gone are the days of real glamour, of movie stars who were the subjects of fan magazines, gossip notoriety (Taylor/Burton: "Cleopatra'), of movie stars not constantly interviewed to death like nowadays where entertainment info shows proliferate and guest spots on "Ellen" strip off the mystique of even the most wildly admired movie stars.
The show is a dinosaur, an organism barely able to sustain itself as it continues to follow the template of the Golden Hollywood days with pretense and a false nostalgia that doesn't support today's more mundane reality. Billowing out the playing field with more than the once traditional 5 nominations for Best Picture has stunted some of the excitement and crowded the competition, something like the once important Grammy Awards.
And when a film such as "Dunkirk" becomes an also ran, where The Academy throws out a few technical awards to a brilliantly executed production and denies it Best Director and Picture, I simply can't take The Oscars seriously. Most recent years I'll go online after the show ends to see what and who has won.
4
This program is tiresome. I have not looked at it in decades. A bunch of self-obsessed, self-congratulatory narcissists strutting around like a bunch of peacocks showing off their wealth. How about just publishing a list of the nominees and winners and be done with. The production of this event is a waste of resources.
If any awards deserve to be televised it is the Nobel’s, those people have truly made achievements that impact humanity.
11
@arusso
Love the Nobels idea. However, less than one-percent of a nation’s population probably has ever heard of the winners.
6
@SmileyBurnette if the Nobels were hyped with the same relentlessness as entertainment awards, with circuits of talk show appearances and gossip on Entertainment Extra and campaigns in social media, more than one-percent would have heard of them. And then, there would be a plethora of related award shows: People’s Choice; Foreign Press; and various scientific, literary, engineering, medical and literary guild sponsored shows. The red carpet fashion critiques on the red carpet would be a highlight — “Dr. Zepper-Stokowski! Who are you wearing tonight?” Acceptance speeches would be peppered with tearful thanks to laboratory assistants, university deans, and “my team at Glaxo Smith Kline.”
10
As soon as I see a "thank you" list coming out of a pocket, I hit the mute button. If it happens three times in a row, i switch to something else.
3
I used to love the Oscars. But that was before they televised the Golden Globes, SAG Awards, Directors Choice, People’s Choice, BAFTA... There actually WAS some suspense and anticipation even though the awards for good work are rather silly - aren’t you SUPPOSED to do a good job at work? Now it’s just “meh.” HER again? This has become as boring as listening to Gaga on every talk show last fall with her “if there are a hundred people in the room” schtick. I’ll look up the winners in the paper Monday morning and save myself the three hours of what we’ve already heard twenty times in the last six weeks.
6
I like to watch the "pre" Oscar shows...to see what everybody is wearing....the actual Oscar show is way too boring!!!!
2
Prediction: Lowest Oscar TV ratings in history dead ahead. No reason to watch. Not a one, unless maybe you're into women's fashions.
7
I completely agree. I always mute the show the second anyone says, "There are so many people to thank." This tradition of whipping out apiece of paper to read an endless list of names has ruined the Oscars. Years ago, the winners just tried to say something heartfelt, maybe funny. Worst of all is when people start thanking their "team." Halle Barry really touched me when she first held her Oscar and said, "This is for Dorothy Dandridge." Ten minutes later, when she was thanking her agent, hairdresser and publicist, I wanted to scream.
5
So no host.
And no thank you’s.
Perhaps we could also do with no films and just all go to bed!
7
I would like to thank Peter for making this fine suggestion.
Oh! and my children at home who can now go to bed and my first grade teacher.
Oh! don't let me forget my husband.
9
Well done! That was a fun editorial on a meaningless TV ritual!
9
I haven't watched this award show for several years. The words that come to mind for me are 'phony' and 'boring'. Hosts that tried to be funny with limited success. Stars whose thank yous went on forever. Plastic looking people giving plastic remarks. I think the show should be shorter-one third of its present time. Let good reporters follow these people around after the show to their parties or drop in on their real conversations. MAYBE there might be something interesting to be found. Couldn't be worse than the way it is now.
6
When the Oscars are on TV, does any one watch?
Maybe those who watch TV all day. For the rest of us it’s not even an option, like ‘do you want to watch Charlie Ross reruns in PBS, or the Oscars?’ and you end up turning off the TV anyway and watching replays of GOT instead.
Who wants to watch 3+ hours of narcissists spitting out political correctness and promoting their favorite Democrat for president?
Not watching, just like I have not watched in 15 years, and won’t watch this year or next either.
I can waste 3+ hours watching cat videos and be the better for it, rather than watching this.
2
I would like to thank my late mother for telling me I could not be an actress when I was 13, and I'm sure the Academy feels the same way.
Even though my father's cousin, Willard Mack, discovered Barbara Stanwick and starred her in The Noose..................
Good night and a huge thanks to all of you!
(PS I didn't make up the Willard Mack part.) :-)
5
It is so very true. Of the many millions of viewers, about 4 care about who is and is not on the "thank you" list of the average winner. Such boring television to listen to these "I'd like to thank ...." lists over and over and over again.
2
The Oscars - an exercise in self absorption conducted by a mutual admiration society.
6
Mr. Mehlman, your snarky comment about the film industry being at odds with family values is uncalled for. The actions that have made news were only "demonstrable" due to the fame of some of people involved, and the subsequent press coverage. Harassment happens in all lines of work, and is illegal and unforgiveable in all of them. People in the film industry and the arts in general may be overrepresented in the coverage of harassment, but not necessarily in the commission of it.
Also, if you are mailing your screeners to friends and family, you are doing something illegal and unethical, something you pledged not to do when you joined the Academy. Check yourself.
4
@R. L. -- Recent outings of the Harvey Weinsteins and countless others of his ilk have come many many decades too late. Apparently, that disgraceful criminal behavior was a well known, but accepted fact. It was the price many were willing to endure for fame and money. The shock and disdain expressed by many in the entertainment industry comes across as hypocrisy.
2
The Oscar represents pure entertainment. Categories should not be called “best” , just most popular. America loves winners and in this ceremony of out of touch, “look at me” celebrities, there are no real losers.
2
How do you solve a problem like the Oscars?
How do you take the glitz and trim it down?
How do you solve a problem like the Oscars?
Get rid of the host, the singing of songs, the gowns?
Many a thing you know you'd like control of
Many a thing they ought to understand
But how do you give a prize
When everyone rolls their eyes
How do you minimize what once was grand?
Oh how do you solve a problem like the Oscars?
How do you change the channel with your hand?
50
@John B
Bravo! Lovely!
2
@John Excellent advise I would follow but I can't change the channel because I threw out the television in 1968. Commercialization ruins a lot of stuff. Oscars too.
1
this is the funniest thing I've read in awhile. I look forward to more posts from Mr Mehlman.....[especially this: There are at most six documented cases of a Michigander saying, “Oh, she’s repped by Ben Anderson at C.A.A. Now it all makes sense.” ]
3
As long as people keep tuning in to this nonsense, they'll have to keep listening to the gibberish that pours from the mouths of the "winners."
1
I must say, the stage looks like the Reichstag in 1938, minus the eagle and the screaming man with the mustache. Not a great visual.
So, no hosts, no acceptance speeches. How about just mailing the trophies to the winners? Football Pro-Bowlers and basketball and baseball All-Stars go to a special game and play. We don't have to listen to them talk.
2
Not sure what anchors your inordinate degree of confidence here.
Somthing to work on: "In thanking the academy, you don’t know WHOM you’re thanking." Whom is your frend, and the object in your sentence. Who is for subjects.
6
Yeah, but every now and then a speech achieves perfection. Like when Jessica Yu, who won for Best Documentary Short Subject, took to the stage and said, "I just realized my dress cost more than my film."
17
The problem facing the Academy Awards is that awards are an inane idea to begin with. But what we do as a society is compound exponentially on the inanity. We go from one to two hours, etc. in the hope that it will correct the inanity. We all know from elementary school on that awards are stupid. So just enjoy the stupidity and don’t try to make lemonade out of lemons.
1
Talk about wastage of time, most of the life is lived in pursuit of or engaging in useless stuff. People who complain Oscar Awards show is too long should switch to some stupid show or turn off their TV and twiddle their thumbs. I take my Lipitor, and drink prune juice, settle on the couch and enjoy the long show. I will be the last man slouching!
6
Disagree completely. It's an industry event that happens *once a year.* Half the fun of watching is the acceptance speeches - and thanking parents and former teachers is perfectly human in this dehumanized world. If you don't want to see them, turn the channel or go back to your online gaming habit. That seems to be about the attention span of your kind.
#keepthespeeches
18
The author of this article is ignorant. Do you know how hard it is to achieve something worthy of an academy award? Do you think it’s possible to do that without help from others? If you achieved something like that, would you feel comfortable ignoring all of those that lifted you up?
Why did you write this? To be cute?
It’s an honest shame you’re in a position to spread your thoughtless, insignificant ideas to a large number of people. But hey, if you win a prize for it one day (god forbid), at least no one will have to listen to you thank anybody.
7
Good idea. Here's a better one. Let us have the diner party for people who actually make movies back. That's what it was before the studios hijacked the event for publicity purposes. And that's what it was like before Harvey Weinstein turned it from a predictable evening to a months long giant court intrigue. Still, it is the most democratic day of the year in Hollywood: Everybody is important so everybody waits.
1
They've tried to curtail acceptance speeches to keep the show moving along in the past. It's never worked. People complain about how long the speeches are, and yet they also say they think it's rude to see the orchestra start playing in the middle of an acceptance speech, which is the typical way to indicate to the award winner that time is up. I suppose they could fit the podium with green, yellow, and red lights, like in an appellate court, but people would probably ignore those too.
My humble suggestion to try and tame length of the show would be to trim back on all of those montages and dance routines that aren't directly related to shows and artists that are nominated for this year. I would make an exception, of course, for the "in memorium" segment.
4
@TGF, hear, hear. May I also suggest cutting out the allegedly witty banter between presenters? Their role ought to be to read the list of nominees, open an envelope an announce the winner. Period. No painfully bad jokes or inside references.
4
Hattie McDaniels’ acceptance speech was one of the greatest moments in the history of the Academy Awards. Her dignity and strength still inspire. Let the winners speak, and thank, but urge them to watch her—and see how it is done.
15
The correct spelling is Hattie McDaniel. Mistakes happen, but taking the time to check names is a way to pay our respects, keeping in mind the (ongoing) history of slighting people of color by misspelling and mispronouncing their names.
1
@Karol Cooper He didn't misspell her name, he inadvertently misplaced the apostrophe. (Had the name been misspelled there would have been an 's' after the apostrophe.)
7
The only marginally interesting part of the Academy Awards is when the stars are interviewed on the red carpet when they arrive. People like to see the outfits and hear the silly things that are said. But broadcasting the announcements of the Awards themselves in the year 2019 makes about as much sense as devoting an entire show to broadcasting the winning lotto numbers with thank you's from the winning numbers (No. 54: "I am so thrilled to have been selected. I just want to say that there truly were so many other numbers that were worthy of being selected"). Just let us know the results and we'll be fine.
4
@Jay Orchard No. 36 is a perennially under-rated number and deserved to win, proving that the lottery is just a popularity contest.
5
Each category should be showcased and then the winner announced. Period. Viewers would be fascinated to see how a actor is transformed by makeup or how set design can affect a pictures quality. We don't need a recap of nominees. Frankly I don't watch this because the academy and I have divergent taste in movies. I like plot, they like spectacle. I like characters, they like superheroes. I like complexity, they like mass appeal.
Ah well, there's always TCM.
8
Not to quibble, but I think that The Artist was a terrific choice for Best Picture!
4
@Laura . Oh... I wondered who the 6 people were.
Mr. Mehlman can save a lot of time by simply not watching the Academy Awards. For my part, I'm looking forward to time I'll save by not reading Mr. Mehlman's novel.
20
Burn!!! And agree.
6
Focusing more on the films would be nice. Unless there is truly a special reason to thank someone. (She gave me my first job or something like that). Also, please stop calling everyone a genius! Of course, they can say what they want but it doesn’t make for good viewing.
3
A meaningful, thought provoking acceptance speech is welcome. Thanking individuals, etc is redundant and meaningless for the audience unless there is a particular story to tell. A thank you to the Academy and all that collaborated in the film is enough. Well family in general if you must.
2
Bravo to the author. This is what I do with the Academy Awards: After THE night, I look up the winners on the Internet. From there I go on Amazon and order the DVD's. Most movie houses have such terrible sound systems that they hurt my ears. I don't go. Only once in awhile do I get a dud from the DVD order. Once in awhile, I will see what gowns are being worn. However, more and more the celebrities are exhibiting poor fashion taste. So, even that is very low on my list.
5
@Jane If you want great sound in a theater, go to one that has Dolby Atmos. It's amazing!
Love watching the Academy Awards, always watch them.
To save time: [1] I would stop with the (silly)banter from presenters (either between themselves or with the audience). Just announce the nominations and winner; [2] I'd like to stop seeing the musical portion; and [3] Don't show trailers for the best picture nominees.
Go Rami!
2
No! I love the music. How about bringing the nominees on stage together? Instead of waiting for winners sitting in the middle of a row (why??? Move them to the aisle when their category is upcoming, at the very least.) to make their way to the aisle and then up to the stage from their seats that are far back in the theater - they can be right on stage when the winner is announced, congratulated by their fellow nominees and straight to the microphone.
2
Clearly, the show should be prerecorded, then televised at twice normal speed.
12
@Robert Sloane I imagine the gambling industry would take exception.
1
What is it that you can't stand about a bunch of artists applauding each other and saying thank-you for the recognition?
If you don't like it, don't watch.
23
@JCH I agree with you JCH wholeheartedly. I make it a point of not watching. I despise the self-congratulatory primping and posturing performed by no one better than actors and wide receivers. As soon as the Nobel Prize Awards are shown on television, as soon as the National Book Awards show is broadcast, as soon as the National Science awards show is shown, as soon as the Congressional Medal of Honors has its show, I will watch the Academy Awards show and even open my eyes and not repeat lalalalalala so as not to hear.
4
Eliminating winners' expressions of appreciation is AMAZINGLY emotionally obtuse for both recipients: those receiving the award will want to acknowledge help and convey gratitude, and those receiving their statements hear the ONLY spontaneous -- semi- or unscripted expression of their personality we will ever experience. We watch this show not to learn who won but to learn about actors we are interested in by their representation of themselves in their non-role attire and speech. (Or to see what role they chose for themselves as a star Oscar attendee.)
13
Why does everyone have to rain on my Oscars parade? It’s a celebration of a great medium that many people are passionate about.
I get it that it’s not for everyone. Neither is football. Or NASCAR. Or Rap. You got a choice. Make it.
I don’t begrudge people their enjoyments. Why do people feel so compelled to change this great experience?
I love the run up, the ceremonies, the clips, the stories, the nominations, the drama, and the speeches. We host a great party with other movie lovers. We stay up late and enjoy every moment.
Please leave it alone.
65
@UScentral but we DON’T enjoy every moment. Some editing would be great.
4
@Kate Then tape it and fast forward.
1
@UScentral The NYT is not everyone, nor should it have any effect on your enjoyment of the Oscars...but I have noticed that nothing makes a person madder than to criticize an entertainment that someone likes. It's really hard not to take such criticism personally. For example, I really like watching dressage competitions, which has been accurately compared to watching cement set. Different strokes.
Limit the speeches to 15 seconds, and let them say whatever they want. Best Picture, Best Actress and Best Actor get 30 seconds.
4
If Oscar truly cared about ratings, this is a no-brainer. Besides the outsized egos present at the ceremony, who needs insiders mentioned that millions of viewers have never heard of or care about. They are the most boring and self-indulgent part of the evening.
7
Here's an idea: No acceptance speeches at podium. Instead, have all Oscar winners go backstage to a camera setup and record two minutes of thanks. Then, like a newsroom, crash edit all these winners' thanks into a 3-minute "thanks reel" that airs at the end of the telecast (presumably edited for both emotion and hilarity). Save the only live "at podium" thanks for the Best Actor / Actress, Best Supporting Actor / Actress, Best Director and Best Film. Much more efficient and could actually be fun to watch (while increasing ratings, prompting viewers to remain through the broadcast).
14
@James L. They actually already did that at least one year. Didn’t stick, clearly.
As a lifelong movie lover, I've watched the Oscars as long as I can remember. My favorite parts of the show are the ones that celebrate the movies -- both the nominees and their predecessors.
I'd love to see the nominees get a two-minute clip instead of the inane banter between presenters. If nominees were showcased and winners simply announced, would anyone actually attend in person?
4
These awards shows are a time to gawk at the pretty people. There is a reason why we don't televise the awards show for the Nobel Prizes, or for the top of any other non-entertainment profession.
Reading the comments many people watch for many reasons, people are different... go figure.
I watch because my wife likes to, and sometimes it's entertaining. I like that the little people lighting and makeup are given awards, but I understand that there isn't as much entertainment value in them as no one knows who they are. So if this really boils down to entertainment for viewers, which I think it does (my opinion) I am fine with getting rid of the usually stumbling and awkward thank you's. I think the social media (twitter feed, Facebook, etc) would be an ideal place for all the thank yous.
Replace it with another musical number or just drop an hour off the 3 hour show... I know my wife would like more time watching the red carpet...
1
I look forward to the Oscars being reduced to a list of winners published in the newspaper. I wonder if it would even mean anything to Hollywood without the spotlights and cameras.
12
@DMS Well, skip the broadcast and read the coverage the next day and BOOM, your wish is granted.
Astonishing how difficult it seems to be for people to simply not watch...
17
@DMS I recently heard a recording of an old broadcast of the 1948 Oscar ceremony on the radio. The whole event from red carpet descriptions of who was arriving and what they wore through to all the announced awards (not including the tech awards) and the acceptance speeches, very short and succinct, and the whole show took 45 min. Perfect!
@DMS Record the program, and start watching half way through. Fast forward over the parts you wish to skip. You may catch up to the live show about the time for the final awards.
What possible difference does it make if the broadcast is two hours, three hours or four hours long? It’s a night for celebrating a major entertainment form once a year - if you’re bored just go back to your online game and let the rest of the audience enjoy whatever they like about the show. The attendees will survive this along with all the other obligations of a career they are actively pursuing. Go ahead, let the winner thank their hair stylist’s cat or anyone else on their list - it might be the most unintentionally genuine thing we ever hear from them.
29
@LN Web
"It’s a night for celebrating a major entertainment form once a year ...."
Once a year? The studios hype numerous awards throughout the year.
1
Books have brief dedications in the front and long acknowledgements in the back. Academy Award winners should emulate dedications. How about limiting them to thanking two people or entities? "I thank my mother and RKO Studios."
The Awards used to be fun because they were live. That gave them a little built-in suspense. Now that we're all Puritans who will faint if we hear a four-letter word, they have a time delay and cut to commercials if anything interesting happens. No fun.
6
I disagree with you completely. The speeches, which are rarely long, are the few moments in the show that are unrehearsed and show genuine emotion; we actually get to see people being regular people: nervous, excited, awkward. I enjoy that, in a world that’s become far too corporate-air-brushed and generic for my (and many) tastes.
What I could to without are some of the categories (e.g., makeup, sound editing); the speech from the Academy president (snooze), most dance numbers and most song performances. Those tend to be when viewers take their bathroom breaks or raid the fridge.
But that’s not going to happen, unfortunately. I gave up on the Oscars years ago because there’s simply WAY too much money involved. And as long as that’s the case, quality programming will always take the short straw.
20
@Thomas D. Unrehearsed? Surely you jest. But this whole discussion shows that we, the non-insiders, have vastly different ideas and needs to be satisfied from such shows, and it is hard to please everyone.
That being said, there certainly are a lot of areas that can be improved.
9
The Artist was a charming film. What was meant to be humorous comes across as snide and ageist.
6
@glorybe or just clueless? A truly original, beautiful production. I believe it will stand the test of time.
3
How about all the nominees filling out a form beforehand with the people, businesses, and deities they want to thank, and put that onscreen while they make their slow way to the stage.
52
Excellent
The best Oscar acceptance speech was given by Joe Pesci who won for Raging Bull back in 1981. He said simply, "this is very nice, thank you."
17
@Rupert122
Nice story. Too bad it didn't happen.
Timothy Hutton won for "Ordinary People."
5
@Marcus I believe De Niro won best actor for Raging Bull and Hutton won best supporting actor.
1
@Marcus, it was obviously a typo on the year. I am sure Rupert122 meant to type 1991, the year Joe Pesci won best supporting actor and gave a five word acceptance speech, "it's my privilege, thank you" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0Q_nyjuEak He should also have won an award for his acceptance speech.
5
Finally some progress. Getting rid of the 'host' with all the time wasted with the supposed herding the evening's activities is a big win.
Next, having those come to the stage, get handed their trophy, and then sit down is the way to go. Give the winners the OK from the Academy that not only are they not expected to open their mouths, but it is just peachy to be quiet. No talks, no political statements, no acknowledging anyone along the way (especially the fawning praise for the directors which no one watching the broadcast will give a darn about, even if you do want to work again on some project).
Third, the presenters need to walk out, introduce the nominees and then open the envelop. No cutsie chatter, inside jokes about ancient Hollywood greats and so on. That scripted inane prose gets few if any polite chuckles and are jokes frequently deemed unsophisticated by ten year old viewers.
Move it on. Evolve. We have better things to do. If this is Hollywood's night, then do whatever you want and stop having it broadcast on network stations.
10
They might as well be reading the phone book. Instead of thanking, they should all be required to tell a witty story. It's a SHOW, for chrissakes. Also, everyone should have to dress themselves instead of being clothes hangers for couturiers. SO BORING.
14
@T L --- makes me remember Diane Keaton, who in the words of Erma Bombeck (good lord I'm old), "looked in her closet and couldn't decide what to wear, so she just wore everything."
1
@T L I really wish women would all agree to come in suits next year. I'm so done with those ridiculous conventional gowns.
2
Watchers of the Oscars: You realize you’re watching awards being given out arbitrarily by a group of people you know nothing about. Suddenly everything changes because one movie or actor was judged to be better than another by a never published set of “standards”. Most viewers just want to gawk at the whole thing for some reason. It does take our minds off trump for a few hours though.
9
I want to thank you for the idea of no thanks.
7
@Technic Ally If they all stopped saying "I want to thank" and just thanked, that would cut out an hour.
If a thank you takes more than 1 minute I switch to another channel.
1
The Oscars are boring and irrelevant. Period.
6
@Nellie Then why do you care?
4
@Nellie If so, why even bother to take the time to read the article (assuming you did) and then comment on it?
1
Thank God.
2
@Matt Olson
They've occasionally done that too.
4
Obviously, through the profound disrespect and envy of non-included 3rd parties spewing perennial attacks on the Oscars, the actual function of the Oscars is dismissed as a recreational late winter rant for the bored or unaccomplished.
The purpose of the Oscars is to recognized, through peer expression, the excellence and passion of the all the members of the cinema creative "orchestra". It can be a life affirming moment for the individuals brought into the spotlight by this peer recognition. It is a night of profound mutual respect and appreciation and that it is also an iconic media event, inviting the world to share in this special mutuality, is still secondary to it's reason for existence.
All the relentless sniping from the sidelines about too many thank you's, who shouldn't be recognized, how it can be "fixed" is bad manners ignoring the unique invitation to the pure emotions on display.
Simply, if you don't like it, don't watch it. If you love cinema, then you by extension must recognize those who create it. Period. None of it comes out of a box. EVERY shot in every movie is hand made by a passionately dedicated team of artists who have devoted their lives to doing their best.
When we, as a society, can no longer recognize that kind of positive ethic on display and can only seek to indite the imperfect, putting "thumbs down" to the network gladiators, with blood lust then, Just change the channel. This show is not for you.
38
@Mark Ulano - Thank you Mark Ulano, for expressing exactly what I was thinking. And thank you to the Academy.
6
@Mark Ulano - Yes, moviemaking is an impressive craft. But why is it the most exalted profession in America? I think this the source of of some of the sniping.
8
@Mark Ulano Thanks Mark for the succinct words. One of the things that struck me about your comments is that movies are made by real people, hand crafted, every shot. So true. For every star actor or director on a film, there are a hundred others toiling in anonymity--yes to try make a living, but also because of their love of the medium. I don't believe that film-making is one of the most exalted professions in America (as T L mentions below) but the power of cinema to change minds, to console, to provoke and to entertain, is enormous--singular among the arts.
11
I am a life-long lover of the movies, but I stopped watching the Academy Awards broadcast years ago (concurrent with the rise of the ubiquitous, mind-numbing super-hero/comic book genres). Seemed obvious to me that there were better ways to spend one's time than wasting three plus hours witnessing boring displays of ego (don't these celebrities get enough adoration already?) and glitzy tackiness. I'll be watching "True Detective" on HBO and/or "Victoria" on PBS, both of which are far more engaging Sunday evening entertainments. The winners list in the NYT the day after will do for me.
8
The recipient could simply say: "Look for my thank you's on social media".
4
Every winner comes on stage and is given 5 seconds to do their best Ric Flair impression. Then "Best WOO!!" is the last award of the night. Time to jazz it up a bit.
1
To be honest, I pretty much *love* the "no thanking" idea.
18
I really think that they need to give some awards outside the televised show time, as the Grammys and the Emmys do. I understand that, you know, the lighting director contributed to the overall success of the movie and that his/her family and friends are proud of him/her, but those awards are not why I tune in to the Oscars. I was disappointed when the Academy backpedaled on its decision to give some awards during the commercials this year.
4
@Carol Ann Maybe each year, the producers of the show should take the time spent on acceptance speeches and use part of it to educate the viewers about the importance of specific behind-the-scenes roles, such as the lighting director.
Several years ago, I saw an awards show (I think it was an awards show) that demonstrated quite clearly the importance of the music soundtrack. That is something that has stuck with me whenever I watch a movie now. Surely, that would be at least as interesting as hearing someone thank their well-paid agent.
3
Watching the acceptance speeches are why you watch the Oscars. They're often the only genuine thing about the evening -- especially with the non-star categories.
Just as movies can't be made without cinematographers and film editors and crew members doing gaffing and PAs keeping pedestrians from walking across sets when shooting outside, actors and directors don't form fully formed a la Athena from Zeus's head. They had help and support from friends and industry professionals. They have the people they have to thank (the "I would like to thank") and the ones they want to thank (the "and thank you to"). The whole point of the spectacle is for Hollywood to celebrate itself, let the winners fete those who they want to as well for a minute or so.
17
This is a great idea. How many people actually pay attention to the thank you speeches? Just the ones who think that they might be mentioned, I bet. They could tighten up the whole ceremony enough that it could start an hour later, which would be a benefit for west coasters, or end an hour earlier allowing the attendees additional party time afterwards.
4
Thank you for saying this! I love the movies. I'm even nerdy enough to read back stories and how things are made etc. But the thanking doesn't progress knowledge or interest or involvement in any way - it's a total bust.
What I WOULD love to hear is a winner talk about why they took this project or where it was hard or how it changed shape or what they learned or since this movie what next projects they are interested in given this one or.... well the list goes on.
If the Oscars is meant to showcase this industry to the public, then use the chance to have them to buy into the humanity and struggle and triumph of the artistic process.
But millionaires on stage in glittering costumes thanking successful executives we'll never meet or know doesn't engender any love, connection or empathy. And I hardly think it makes much of a difference to these faceless enablers (or God or their dog etc).
The show is televised - so if thanking must happen maybe have a Chiron so those so desperate for recognition can see their name in pixelated lights scroll across the bottom.
And we can get a show worthy of bringing us closer to this wondrous art form.
27
A simple 'thank you' will suffice, and maybe name that ONE person who really helped you get where you are in life (perhaps Hilary Swank's husband really didn't do all that much for her career, after all they're not married any longer). I'd rather have a touching story about a family member that inspired them rather than droning on with a list of folks who probably did the same thing for all the people they represented, or dressed, or made-up, or directed.
3
Why not just keep the show as is?
It seems silly to me that ABC and the Academy are always trying to come up with ways to increase the mass appeal of the show, when it's pretty obvious that the Oscars don't have such appeal these days. It's not the Super Bowl. And it's clear that, now that audiences have myriad entertainment options, an awards show, regardless of its glamour and history, only appeals to a limited audience.
And that's okay! It doesn't have to draw in 80 million people. I'm willing to wager that, just as in the past, whatever new twists ABC adds to upcoming telecasts, the audience for the show will remain about the same. Just revel in the pageantry, the acceptance speeches, the awards for editing and cinematography, and all that comes with it. Your audience already exists, stop disappointing them by catering to a mass audience that never materializes.
30
@Vin "Just revel in the pageantry, the acceptance speeches,..."
Do viewers actually "revel" in the acceptance speeches or do they just use them for a quick trip to the refrigerator?
4
@Vin
"It doesn't have to draw in 80 million people."
'The Oscars' is a television special that ABC puts on, for which The Academy are essentially showrunners.
...and I think ABC would disagree with your comment.
1
@Vin Then let their little clique celebrate as they want, for days on end if they so wish.
Just put it on some obscure satellite channel rather than network TV.
In any event, hire better writers who can come up with a good joke or eliminate the dross.
2
Do we need the Oscars anymore?
Seems like a vintage idea whose demise is long overdue.
Manipulated, purchased, and irrelevant, it seems there are no more actors anymore... just movie stars... and The Oscars is a popularity contest, at best.
Seriously, is there even anyone out there who has watched the entire dhow in the past 25 years?
22
@Paul I have and actually was watching when Charlie Chaplin accepted his Oscar and a streaker ran past David Niven. I make a list of movies to go see from Oct. through Dec as 9 months out of the year the films are awful....I am "The typical, lifelong Academy Awards show viewer — a demographic couched somewhere between Lipitor and Synthroid —" (I love this description!) I say, if you don't like it, don't watch. I don't watch Dancing with the Stars which I think is far more drivel and much less relevant than recognizing good work in a medium that some of us still love.
44
I have (and will) watch the Oscars end-to-end. And one of the high points for me is when, in an acceptance speech, we get a look at the human being behind the role. Seeing the actor or director speaking their own words, reflecting their own emotions, is compelling. Christian Bale’s speech at the Golden Globes was worth watching the entire rest of the broadcast. The problem isn’t with the idea of the speech, it’s with it’s execution.
15
I absolutely agree. So many commentators here are bored, bored, bored by what the winners have to say yet somehow think their own comments are interesting.
7