We were offline last night (a break for computer strained eyeballs) so we're hours late delivering the news but good news is still good the next morning. Deadline scooped that the Academy has decided to reverse the decision to not present all categories live. This is a very happy turn of events but it's also left us feeling bruised and battered. Deadline's scoop reminds us that a large part of the problem -- a problem that's not going away any time soon -- is the way the media frames these issues. The media is essentially complicit in ABC's tactics at undermining the Oscars. For those who are looking closely at the situation it's become blindingly obvious that ABC is a toxic and abusive partner to The Academy, more concerned with pushing their own stars (like Jimmy Kimmel) and movies (more awards for Disney blockbusters plz -- hey how about a "popular Oscar"?) than perpetuating the brand of the Oscars themselves. And that brand, the Oscars, is the reason people tune in each year, not for any particular host or any particular movie.
ABC has strategically kept the Academy in panic mode with 'the sky is falling' style messaging about their lack of popularity (which is bollocks but facts are hard to see when you're in an abusive relationship). But the problem becomes larger because the media continually helps them do it! Consider the way Mike Fleming Jr frames the piece (and he's hardly the first) in his article...
This become the latest in an Oscarcast that has been trying hard to bring the Academy Awards into the 21st century, but bucking up against an organization steeped in tradition.
The implication here is that denying four winners their Oscars live is somehow *more* 21st century and, thus more hip than the tradition itself of giving out all the Oscars. What could be more wrong than the notion that, in today's streaming world and culture of immediacy, that tape delay and edited broadcasts are more appealing and more modern for viewers? They aren't. You could argue that "Live" broadcasts are actually more popular than they've ever been. With 21st century technology, live musicals on TV, live "results" shows for dumb reality competitions, live sporting events (think of how annoyed people are when the Olympics are tape delayed) are common place. And then consider the dwindling appeal of stretched out release patterns when every city or country gets things weeks or months aparts to (theoretically) build buzz when buzz spreads like wildfire now in second online. If anything to be 21st century is to do it live for everyone all at once! (Which the Oscars were already doing in the 20th century).
The culture of RIGHT NOW and immediacy is also in indirect conflict with ABC's (and full time media complainers) repeated concerns about the show's length. For whatever reason media pundits and television critics and everyone likes to say "the Oscars are too long." But nobody ever says that the Superbowl should be shorter (the only show more popular than the Oscars) and if you think something is too long another thing that's very 21st century is to just wait and digest it in itty bitty bites on YouTube the next day anyway (another popular 21st century habit that the Oscars have totally embraced with their quick release of clips. In today's streaming culture where people habitually watch 12-13 hours of one story over a day or three as a "binge," and 'Netflix bloat' is common vernacular because stories have so much padding due to this unending audience patience, and in a culture where movies are generally longer than they were decades ago (90 minutes seems like a thing of the past doesn't it?), is it really 21st century to have shorter running times than you used to?
And consider all the free bad advice the media is always giving the Oscars like this one from the Deadline article:
There are still compromises that can be explored, even this late into the proceedings. Here is one, free of charge. I’ve heard that in past Oscarcasts, they recorded the amount of collective time that it took between a winner being announced, and that recipient or recipients collecting the obligatory hugs and kisses, and then weaving the way to the stage. Over the course of an entire show, 26 minutes were wasted, before a single word of an acceptance speech was made. Would it not be worth exploring putting all the nominees onstage, and then announcing the winner? It would provide a sharing moment of respect and even those who don’t win can congratulate the winner, who can give a quick speech and the whole lot whisked off stage as the Oscars heads into a commercial.
They already tried a version of this -- I forget which misbegotten ceremony -- and it was gross to have the losers on stage, removed from the company of their loved ones, and having to just stand there awkwardly when the winner was plucked from among them. But, more importantly, how are the hugs and kisses a "waste" of time? The emotion in these moments, when someone realize they're 'a winner, baby' is basically the entire heart of awards shows or at least its the rapidly increasing heart rate before the fuller emotional arc of the acceptance speech itself (a good one at least).
Honestly the Academy would be better merely seating the nominees closer to the stage and gifting all of them with professional speechwriters so that they avoid the dull recitation of names style of speeches -- that's the true hidden cause of boredom and 'leaden pacing' on awards nights.
ABC and the continually "helpful" media who are just as short-sighted as the Academy when they publish their annual '10 ways to fix the Oscars' drivel (not all ideas are bad but you have to sift through a lot of bad takes to get to an idea that is actually movie-honoring-friendly and awards-show strong) are clearly toxic partners for the Academy leaders. But they're not, in the end, to blame. This mess of a season still falls squarely on Dawn Hudson, John Bailey, and the current boards of governors and executive committee members who agreed to these initial changes which were almost uniformly NOT in keeping with the Academy's identity and purpose. In the end these people are grown adults who only have themselves to blame when they lack spine and business sense to stand up to toxic whispering partners who want to "help" them, and they only have themselves to blame if they lack leadership skills or transparency in that same leadership to the point where they've ended up continually enraging their own constituents.
We hope the Oscars run forever and are still an annual big deal 100 years after we're dead. But in order for that to happen, they need a new board of governors first chance they get. When electing leaders they need, first and foremost, governors and presidents and executive committee members who actually love Oscar night and understand why it's held such consistent appeal for 91 years. They need executives and leaders who cherish both the art of the movies and the visual and emotional language of awards shows. The membership needs to elect leaders within each branch that are TV savvy enough to get that the show could be more fun and well paced without sacrificing its very essence. And they need to elect leaders with wits enough to stop imbibing the poison coming from ABC and stop believing all the misguided "help" coming from the media that often takes the form of 'do what this other show does that's less popular than you!'. And (whew the list is getting long) they need realists who are not under the delusion or fantasy that the show will ever be watched by as many people as it was in the 1960s when there were only 3 channels. That era is long gone.
Are all of those needs a tall order to find in leaders within each branch of the Academy and at the very top? Maybe. But it's what movie lovers and Oscar night deserves.