2011 Oscar Host

[Greg]

This ad makes me glad they chose Franco and Hathaway to host:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WMDx7faH3g

[Eric]

There are two genders (we're not all 'transgendered') after all.

Could've fooled me.

[criddic3]

From what I understand, it's a belief among many female actors that by going by a separate term, they are discounting the work done by female actors as not being equivalent to male actors. So, they consider the term actor to be gender neutral.

And didn't Katharine Hepburn refer to herself as an actor and not an actress for that basic reason?

The term "actor" applies to all - male, female, lead, supporting - but when you put them in separate categories you are already distinguishing between them.

It's carrying political correctness to a ridiculous extreme.

Why not separate the category? There are men and there are women. While I think men and women can be equals in virtually every field, we live with the constant reminder that men and women are different. Not lesser, just different. It's like Best Cats and Best Dogs. Besides, it allows for more nominees. I don't wanna see a category of 10 Best Actor nominees. That's boring! Only one can win.

Also, I have no problem with the term 'actress' and I have met very few women who really care about having a different term for female actors. Who cares about 'gender neutral'? There are two genders (we're not all 'transgendered') after all.

[criddic3]

I don't see any conflict of interest. Hosts of other awards shows have been up for awards when they hosted. Sometimes they win, sometimes they don;t.

The opposite could occur as well. James Franco is considered a likely nominee for Best Actor while Anne Hathaway is considered a distant also-ran for Best Actress. Suppose voters feel bad for Hathaway potentially being not nominated while her co-star likely is and throw votes to her out of sympathy? It sounds silly, and it is, but I think it's more likely that that will happen than Franco's fellow actors saying "he's hosting so he doesn't deserve our support".

I was thinking about how silly it would be, as well, yesterday. It is more of a way for viewers and media-types to find suspense where there isn't any. Still, it will feel a little strange watching two hosts that are also nominees and wondering whether the hosts could win their category. Just seems a little awkward.

[Eric]

Which is why I prefer the Village Voice/Indiewire critics polls, who only differentiate between the best lead performance and the best supporting performance.

(Well, that's not the only reason I prefer them to Oscar results, but bear with me.)

[Big Magilla]

From what I understand, it's a belief among many female actors that by going by a separate term, they are discounting the work done by female actors as not being equivalent to male actors. So, they consider the term actor to be gender neutral.

And didn't Katharine Hepburn refer to herself as an actor and not an actress for that basic reason?

The term "actor" applies to all - male, female, lead, supporting - but when you put them in separate categories you are already distinguishing between them.

It's carrying political correctness to a ridiculous extreme.

[Mister Tee]

I wonder, though, if the classic movies they present will be the usual AFI warhorses (Gone With The Wind, The Wizard of Oz, The African Queen On The Waterfront) or whether they'll be movies that have been "discovered" in recent years, such as Douglas Sirk's ouevre, Kiss Me Deadly, Black Narcissus, Rio Bravo.

You don't actually wonder this, do you? They'll salute the Academy perennials; that's their business. Maybe with a little more variety that those few overexposed-to-the-point-of-invisibility films you mention, but there won't be any revisionism. It'll be well within Chuck Workman guidelines.

[OscarGuy]

From what I understand, it's a belief among many female actors that by going by a separate term, they are discounting the work done by female actors as not being equivalent to male actors. So, they consider the term actor to be gender neutral.

And didn't Katharine Hepburn refer to herself as an actor and not an actress for that basic reason?

[Big Magilla]

When they first started saying "the Oscar goes to" it sounded pretentious, but now every awards show does it. What seems pretentious now is "and the the winner is". It seems to me like they're making fun of the old days.

One modern slant I'll never get used to, though, is SAG calling actresses female actors. The Spirit Awards is even worse. They don;t even call them actors. It's Best Lead Male, Best Lead Female, Best Supporting Male and Best Supporting Female. Under those terms, any animal could be nominated. I mean, after all, wasn't Lassie a supporting female? Of course, "she" was played by a "he" which brings up a whole other issue.

[Uri]

And another thing. I hope they do away with the retro "...and the winner is..." from last year and go back to the classier "...and the Oscar goes to..."

I much prefer the vulgar sincerity (or the sincere vulgarity) of "the winner is" over the fake, pseudo "classy", but o so you-are-all-winners-but-someone-just-must-take-that-golden-trophy-home niceness of "and the Oscar goes to". (On the other hand, based on so many recent - ahm, what the *uck – wins, maybe the outcomes are not based on any merit oriented hierarchy after all, and the Oscar really just arbitrarily goes to random persons).



Edited By Uri on 1291196695

[Damien]

I'm glad they picked two young actors who know their movie history, unlike so many of their contemporaries.

I was aghast reading an interview with Christian Bale the other day - I don't know if he was putting the interviewer on, or really is as ignorant about old movies as he gave the impression he was - but after stating that he didn't like comedies, the interviewer asked if he had seen Bringing Up Baby, Bale wanted to know if that was really the title of a movie. When asked if he had seen The Philadelphia Story he said he hadn't, but at least he apparently had heard of it.

I think actors, particularly those who are major stars, ought to make it their business to see the major films of the past. It's not like they don't have the time.

It's even worse when writers, directors and producers don't know their film history.

I wonder, though, if the classic movies they present will be the usual AFI warhorses (Gone With The Wind, The Wizard of Oz, The African Queen On The Waterfront) or whether they'll be movies that have been "discovered" in recent years, such as Douglas Sirk's ouevre, Kiss Me Deadly, Black Narcissus, Rio Bravo.

[Big Magilla]

And another thing. I hope they do away with the retro "...and the winner is..." from last year and go back to the classier "...and the Oscar goes to..."

[Big Magilla]

Well... in fact they´ve made me curious about it... this is taken from The Hollywood Reporter. As somebody pointed out, we can not remotely know if this is goin´to work, but once again, a big change in the show´s format (not only in the form of the hosts) might be on the way. The paragraph that intrigues me the most is this one:

“We have a concept [but] we can’t elaborate on it very much at this point since it’s still in progress,” Mischer said of the road that led to the current hosts. “We felt that an interesting thread running through the show is the enduring power of motion pictures. They transcend generations, and each new generation rediscovers classic films on their own. On Oscar night, we’ll be celebrating the great films of the year, but we’ll also be making references to some of the great films of the past. But to do that through the eyes of two young actors who are emerging as major talents in film — we felt that was a great way to go.”

That's heartening, especially after last year's nonsense about not showing clips of old movies.

I'm glad they picked two young actors who know their movie history, unlike so many of their contemporaries.

I was aghast reading an interview with Christian Bale the other day - I don't know if he was putting the interviewer on, or really is as ignorant about old movies as he gave the impression he was - but after stating that he didn't like comedies, the interviewer asked if he had seen Bringing Up Baby, Bale wanted to know if that was really the title of a movie. When asked if he had seen The Philadelphia Story he said he hadn't, but at least he apparently had heard of it.

I think actors, particularly those who are major stars, ought to make it their business to see the major films of the past. It's not like they don't have the time.



Edited By Big Magilla on 1291164722

[HarryGoldfarb]

Well... in fact they´ve made me curious about it... this is taken from The Hollywood Reporter. As somebody pointed out, we can not remotely know if this is goin´to work, but once again, a big change in the show´s format (not only in the form of the hosts) might be on the way. The paragraph that intrigues me the most is this one:

“We have a concept [but] we can’t elaborate on it very much at this point since it’s still in progress,” Mischer said of the road that led to the current hosts. “We felt that an interesting thread running through the show is the enduring power of motion pictures. They transcend generations, and each new generation rediscovers classic films on their own. On Oscar night, we’ll be celebrating the great films of the year, but we’ll also be making references to some of the great films of the past. But to do that through the eyes of two young actors who are emerging as major talents in film — we felt that was a great way to go.”

Here is the complete thing:

The Hollywood Reporter

Anne Hathaway and James Franco to Host the Oscars
12:48 PM 11/29/2010 by Gregg Kilday

"James Franco and Anne Hathaway personify the next generation of Hollywood icons -- fresh, exciting and multi-talented. We hope to create an Oscar broadcast that will both showcase their incredible talents and entertain the world on February 27," Oscar telecast producers Bruce Cohen and Don Mischer said.
UPDATED

This was one Oscar pool no one was going to win.

The producers of the 83rd Academy Awards on Monday pulled off a surprise by recruiting James Franco and Anne Hathaway, rather than any of the usual suspects, to front the awards telecast set for Feb. 27 on ABC.

Not only did producers Bruce Cohen and Don Mischer opt for a male-female teaming, they picked one of the youngest duos in Oscar history.

[RELATED: Complete awards watch and analysis.]

It’s only the third time that an opposite-sex couple have shared the hosting assignment and the first since Jerry Lewis and Celeste Holm turned the trick in 1957 — and even then the couple didn’t share the stage since Holm was beamed in from a simultaneous ceremony in New York.

Hathaway, 28, also will be the youngest Oscar host. Come show time at the Kodak Theatre, she’ll be a few months younger than Donald O’Connor was when, fresh off the success of Singin’ in the Rain, he co-hosted the 1954 show.

At 32, Franco might seem like a new kid on the block, but there have been plenty of other hosts — like Lewis (the first year he hosted in 1955), Diana Ross, Goldie Hawn and Kathleen Turner — who were 30 when they shared in hosting duties. And even though Bob Hope came to be known as the most senior of Oscar hosts, he was only 36 when he presided for the first time in 1939.

“We have a concept [but] we can’t elaborate on it very much at this point since it’s still in progress,” Mischer said of the road that led to the current hosts. “We felt that an interesting thread running through the show is the enduring power of motion pictures. They transcend generations, and each new generation rediscovers classic films on their own. On Oscar night, we’ll be celebrating the great films of the year, but we’ll also be making references to some of the great films of the past. But to do that through the eyes of two young actors who are emerging as major talents in film — we felt that was a great way to go.”

Of course, the fact that the producers waited until just three months until the Oscars to unveil the hosts has led to speculation that other perspective emcees turned down the gig. Hugh Jackman, who hosted two years ago, and Tina Fey are among those who are said to have been approached.

But according to Cohen, once he and Mischer hit upon the idea of two hosts, it was the matter of finding the right combination, which meant looking beyond the usual list of stand-up comedians.

“We started looking at the idea of movies stars,” he said. “The Oscars are the chance for the movie industry, one night a year, to entertain the world and remind the world that movies have been entertaining the world for generations. That just kept feeling [like it called for] movie stars to us.

“We loved the job that Alec [Baldwin] and Steve [Martin] did last year as a duo. And it hasn’t been since 1957 that a man and a woman have co-hosted together, so we thought it was time for a male movie star and a female movie star to co-host. As a film producer, casting is always one of the most important and most fun parts of the process. So Don and I were looking for a combination that you hadn’t seen before, but when you heard it, you thought, ‘That’s exciting’.”

They approached Franco and Hathaway individually and pitched their concept, and then Franco and Hathaway spoke with each other before committing.

While some skeptics found the choice of two non-comedians an odd one, both Franco and Hathaway have hosted Saturday Night Live — where Franco impersonated James Dean and Hathaway offered up a wicked parody of Katie Holmes — proving their ability to handle live situations.

Of the two, Hathaway has to be the better known among the general public. In her first film role in The Princess Diaries, she had a $100 million hit. She has followed up with other crowd-pleasers like The Devil Wears Prada, Get Smart and Alice in Wonderland, although her latest movie, the skin-baring romantic comedy Love and Other Drugs, just opened to an unimpressive $14 million over the five-day Thanksgiving holiday. Hathaway was also nominated for an Oscar for best actress in 2009 for her role in Rachel Getting Married.

“I can’t talk about anything,” she said, dodging any Oscar-related questions as she made her way into the Gotham Independent Film Awards in New York on Monday night.

Meanwhile, Franco, who presumably was off studying in his other life as a Ph.D. student at Yale University, has built his career by appearing in the spectacularly successful Spider-Man movies, albeit in the supporting role of the Green Goblin’s son, Harry Osborn. As a headliner, his biggest success has been the 2008 stoner comedy Pineapple Express, which grossed $87 million in North America. But the idiosyncratic actor has been equally at home in indie projects like Milk and Howl and is considered a best actor contender this year for his dramatic performance as a trapped hiker in 127 Hours.

On the East Coast, the Oscar casting picked up several good notices.

“They are two very intelligent and very talented actors,” Harvey Keitel said. “I think they will bring a very good vibe. Oscar is in good hands.”

Focus Features CEO James Schamus agreed. “I just think that’s cool,” he said. “They are cool people.”

Back in Hollywood, as Cohen and Mischer put together a show that’s aiming to view the galaxy of old Hollywood through the prism of two new stars, Academy president Tom Sherak said the hosts “bring us that young Hollywood combining the present and the past.”

“Bruce and Don have created something that will be really special, that will give you all the emotions and feelings that you want from that show,” Sherak added. “You have to be able to reach the broad audience. Hopefully, James and Anne will help us do that.”

Georg Szalai in New York and Kim Masters contributed to this report.

[Big Magilla]

I don't see any conflict of interest. Hosts of other awards shows have been up for awards when they hosted. Sometimes they win, sometimes they don;t.

The opposite could occur as well. James Franco is considered a likely nominee for Best Actor while Anne Hathaway is considered a distant also-ran for Best Actress. Suppose voters feel bad for Hathaway potentially being not nominated while her co-star likely is and throw votes to her out of sympathy? It sounds silly, and it is, but I think it's more likely that that will happen than Franco's fellow actors saying "he's hosting so he doesn't deserve our support".