Why the Oscars really needs a host this year

The Hollywood Reporter ran a fascinating quiz last week: It asked a random sample of about 2,200 adults a simple question: What movie took home the Best Picture Oscar last year?

A not-so whopping 20% of respondents got the right answer: "The Shape of Water." By far the biggest response, 58%, was: no clue.

Likely the reason is that a very high percentage of those 2,200 adults had not gone to the movies to see "The Shape of Water." (I tried the quiz out on a range of friends and colleagues: Out of approximately 10 people, only one got the film right, though another suggested it might have been "the one about the fish-man.")

It is probably too late for this information to mean anything to the producers of the upcoming Oscars show on February 24, but there are a couple of messages screaming out loud in these results: 1. Don't count on the appeal of the year's best picture to pull in hordes of viewers, because the odds are very high that few people are going to have seen that movie. And 2. Why on earth would it be a good idea to skip having somebody host the event this year?

The trend has been all but cemented over the past decade or so that the year's big honors have gone to beautifully crafted, smaller-budget films, ones that used to be called "arthouse movies."

Unsurprisingly, along with that trend has come a precipitous decline in the size of the audience for the Oscars show, which plummeted to a new and alarming low last year of 26.5 million viewers, down almost 20% from the year of the envelope fiasco.

This year might be different because a few movies that qualify as hits — "Black Panther," "A Star Is Born," "Bohemian Rhapsody," and "Mary Poppins Returns" — will likely win nominations. But the rest of the lineup will likely include a familiar assortment of smaller returns, critically praised little gems: "Green Book," "BlacKkKlansman," "The Favourite," and "If Beale Street Could Talk." A movie in a foreign language, "Roma," might even win — that's never happened before. And almost nobody went to the movies to see that one because it's available on Netflix.

The winnowing of the Oscars audience is probably impossible to stem, no matter what the Academy does, and it is trying some ideas this year, like giving some less prominent awards away during commercial breaks, and promising yet again to cut down on the show's bloated length (3 hours, 50 minutes last year.) Too many people just find the show both irrelevant and boring now.

Making things even worse, it is now strongly expected that the Academy will have the show go host-less this year. It would be a fallback plan, of course. The initial choice for the role, Kevin Hart, was devoured by his own history of ugly "comedy" on gay themes.

The process went totally quiet after Hart stepped down, though there had to be frantic discussions for weeks in elegant Beverly Hills boites about who could be induced to step in late, and who might fulfill another suspected new requirement of no edgy material (as in: cutting political jokes, slashing jokes about stars and their peccadillos, pointed jokes about sensitive Hollywood topics like sexual harassment) — thanks to a sense that it doesn't play widely with the Oscars audience.

Given the timing and the strictures, maybe it's no shock that a different host never turned up in the audition room. But the idea that it wouldn't help the broadcast to have a name host with proven appeal is counterintuitive. Anything entertaining would help the broadcast.

It's not as though it is impossible to think of candidates who might pique the interest of viewers who've sworn off the Oscars habit. Some names come to mind quickly. How about Tina Fey and Amy Poehler, who've killed at the Golden Globes? Or either separately? Or Amy with Maya Rudolph, who just killed again at the Globes?

Will Ferrell and Kristen Wiig together? Jim Parsons is undeniably talented and maybe would help stem any lingering enmity over the unpleasant Kevin Hart business. Donald Glover has become an entertainment force; who wouldn't want to see him play host? (Maybe not the Academy if it's really committed to no ruffled feathers.) Melissa McCarthy has been a top movie comedy star for years, and she may be a nominee. How about Bryan Cranston, who can literally do anything? (OK, he's engaged on Broadway at the moment.) Dave Chappelle? Keegan-Michael Key? Jordan Peele? Or reunion of same? Is there any figure in the entertainment business more appealing right now than Lin-Manuel Miranda?

He will be finished with his run as "Hamilton" in Puerto Rico in time to make it to the Oscars show — and he almost certainly will because the alternative to having one comedy-oriented host will likely be lots of people singing songs. He and Emily Blunt may do something from "Mary Poppins Returns" and Lady Gaga will surely be a presence singing from "A Star is Born." Maybe Rami Malek will sing with Queen, which would be a moment.

There are indeed ways to survive this year host-less thanks to movies with a lot of built-in entertainment value.

But the result will still be a party without a genuine host. The title does imply a real function: to welcome the guests, put them at ease and take charge of the event. That could mean stepping out front to cover for any untoward moments (there have been plenty of those at previous Oscars). And just being a warm and funny presence.

It can be done. See: Billy Crystal, circa 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2004 and 2012.

And if he's interested.....

Let's block ads! (Why?)