Woody Allen at the Oscars? How exciting is that? There aren't too many folks whose surprise appearance would mean boo but Woody, plus a lot of the "right" people winning, might mean we'll hear fewer folks tomorrow morn saying, "Boy, that was the worst Academy Awards show ever." They'll fault it for being long, and for the presenter banter (which I thought was better than the norm, and almost pain-free) but, all in all, I thought it was a pretty good show. Here are some other thoughts off the top of my cranium…
- As always, the show ran longer than advertised. The "official" length, as per the announced schedule, was 3 and a half hours — which is when my TiVo shut off, somewhere in the middle of the montage of dead folks. Credits finally rolled around an hour later and, of course, the producers knew well in advance they'd be around that length. No one made an extra-long speech, no one took eleven minutes to walk onto the stage. Absolutely nothing occurred that could not have been estimated in advance. So how about if we just admit in advance that the show's going to run 4 and a half hours? That way, those who went out and set their VCRs would get to see the presentation for Best Picture.
- Woody's appearance was a stunner…though did you get the idea that a few of those who stood and clapped were a little unsure if they wanted to do that for someone with his, uh, personal history?
- One of the few "missteps" I thought occurred in the broadcast was in the performance by Cirque du Soleil. Whether it's worth taking X minutes of Oscarcast time for a great act that has nothing whatsoever to do with movies is arguable. But if it was going to be included, I think it was a mistake to try and pretend it had something to do with the field of Visual Effects and to throw all those clips of special effects sequences in the background. Cirque du Soleil is a visual feast without any help and, with the film montage running, there was just too much on the screen: You couldn't see the clips, you couldn't see the acrobats.
- The footage accompanying Bill Hanna's "in memoriam" salute should have been from a Tom & Jerry film. He didn't win Oscars for his TV cartoons.
- First rule of directing the Academy Awards Telecast: Any time anyone says anything having to do with race or brotherhood, cut immediately to a shot of Samuel L. Jackson in the audience. And then, if there's time and he's in his seat, Will Smith.
- Boy, the Kodak Theater looks nice on camera.
- Boy, Randy Newman's win was sure popular with the audience. (But you see, this is the kind of thing I was talking about, earlier. The main thing that makes an award show fun to watch is when the "right" people win and they get up there and give charming, funny speeches. But when that doesn't happen, critics dump on the folks who produced and wrote the telecast, as if they've screwed up…)
- Same thing with Halle Berry's acceptance speech. To some, it will always be a memorable high point, and perhaps it is. But when this kind of thing doesn't occur — when the Best Actress doesn't cry and have an emotional outburst, people fault the guys who produced the telecast.
- Whoopi G. did not one but two Liza wedding jokes, and she did a slightly different Ashcroft line than we predicted. I didn't watch the middle so I may have missed an Enron or Gary Condit joke.
- Having Donald Sutherland and Glenn Close as announcer/hosts would have been a better idea if they'd had fewer off-topic trivia lines to read. And it would have been even better if real, professional announcers had done the honors. (If ever a show didn't need big names to draw an audience, it's the Academy Awards…)
And that's all that comes to mind at the moment. Tune in next year for the next "Worst Oscar Show Ever."