Okay…so Kevin Hart is out as Oscar Host because he might offend people and Ricky Gervais is trying to place himself in the running. But of course, the whole point of picking Ricky Gervais would be to get more people to tune in because he would be offending people. I don't think so and it all begs the question of just what the job requirements today are to host the Academy Awards. I'm not sure anyone is clear on this. I'm not sure there really are any.
Some of those involved in the selection probably aren't interested in anything else besides "Who'd get the most people to tune in?" America's interest in award shows has fizzled a lot in recent years, perhaps because there are way too friggin' many of them. But maybe it's also because your top movie stars are paid so, so much money (and it's not a secret) that a lot of people really view the show as a lot of undeserving, easy-to-resent, overpaid people celebrating the awesomeness of each other. Which, of course, it is.
To some extent, the Oscars these days are like watching Jeff Bezos play Deal or No Deal. Even winning the top prize isn't going to change his life one bit. We don't have a lot of rooting interest these days for actors, even for our favorites. If your career has been such that you're up for an Oscar, you're probably to the point where you're so rich and famous that it won't make a bit of difference. I mean, you might get $20 million for your next film instead of $15 million but why should anyone who can't afford health insurance care?
So maybe what the Oscars need is a host who can puncture all the pomposity and bring it back down closer to the real world. In that sense, maybe Ricky Gervais wouldn't be a bad choice, just as Kevin Hart wasn't a bad choice. But then the show won't so much be about Who will win? but about about Who will Ricky insult? Hell, if all we want is controversy and puncturing, forget about Ricky and bring in Gilbert Gottfried.
Somewhere amidst those who'll make the decision, there may be someone concerned with propriety and the dignity of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. There are plenty of hosts out there who can fulfill that role. Why not have Meryl Streep host? She's a big star and it would save the time it takes a winner seated in the audience to get to the stage. She could just give herself most of the awards — and don't tell me she isn't likely to be up for one this time. With Streep, that doesn't matter.
Really, nothing matters on Oscars Night. Those who just want a host who will improve the ratings may be kidding themselves that there is a host who will improve the ratings. In a real sense, it's like trying to select a sportscaster who'll boost the tune-in for the World Series. If people care about who wins, they'll watch and if they don't, you could have the biggest or the rudest person doing play-by-play and he or she wouldn't make a gram of difference. I say get Gervais…or better still, Gottfried. Hell, get Trump and let him congratulate himself after every award because, you know, he would.
I'm not saying it will improve the ratings. I don't think any host would improve the ratings. They'll be the same if a megastar hosts or if you and I go in and do it. They should just pick the person who will make a shambles of the thing because at least those of us who do watch will enjoy watching the ship sink.