Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Please welcome your hosts... James Franco and Anne Hathaway?

Finally I get to know who will host next year's Oscars. After so much predicting we finally get these two people: James Franco and Anne Hathaway.

First found out when I searched IMDB and news came in telling us that both actors are doing their duties hosting next year's Oscars.

Which had me asking:

These two actors have something in common. Hathaway and Franco hosted Saturday Night Live, both appeared in great comedies (Hathaway was in The Devil Wears Prada while Franco was in Pineapple Express) and had a head start on their character as type characters (she was a children's actor, Franco was somewhat a fanboy's actor in the Spiderman movies) and they're both attractive people on the outside and the inside

But these actors are the wrong people to be negotiated with. This is the worst decision the Academy had ever made since snubbing WALL-E at the Oscars two years ago. You could have known a more accurate detail of both actors instead of knowing who they are from the gossip magazines

  • Firstly, Hathaway had never had a great movie since Rachel Getting Married. That movie is still part of my favourite movies of all time. The movie had resulted her an Oscar nomination for Best Actress. But the latest film might have been a lambast. 'Love and Other Drugs' was released out of massive marketing particularly when there was details about her taking it off with Jake Gylenhaal. It was a flop debuting at sixth place with negative word-of-mouth. While Franco. Never seen his films before except the Spiderman films. But I'm not quite sure if he's a good actor and how did he deserved to be the most influential man of 2010 in many magazines (Askmen, GQ)? 
  • Secondly, this is an excuse to get a boost in the ratings instead of the reason the Academy is putting behind. Choosing these actors as hosts is because the Academy believed they are 'icons of their generation'. Seriously you could have chosen Robert Downey Jr or Natalie Portman for the roles because they are great actors of their generation. Downey's in X, Portman's Y.  But because they (Franco, Hathaway) are well known to people my age, they (the Academy) choose them. It's also add to the fact that in theory, if you have an actor hosting and nominated at the Oscars at the same time, it would've a milestone. Given how Franco is a possible nominee for Best Actor for Danny Boyle's 127 Hours, it would have matched the theory.
  • I think these two actors have absolutely no experience in hosting. Hosting the Oscars is a big job. It's not your average presentation night. They're not like Steve Martin, Billy Crystal who once ruled the Oscars and had us recognising movies like American Beauty, Gladiator, Lost In Translation and the Lord Of The Rings trilogy. But if these actors are hosting well they wanted us to know about great movies we have watched this year like Inception, The Social Network or Toy Story 3. But I predict that Franco and Hathaway despite their comedic routine (if they have one) would force us to look at movies we never heard or watched like Winter's Bone or Animal Kingdom or any movie that are only known to people who avoids the mainstream. Even if they had hosted Saturday Night Live, their ability to host would be limited. These people would tell us jokes that couldn't grab a laugh or such. 
  • There are more choices for Academy Award hosting. You could've chose Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart or maybe Paul Giamatti or Jack Black. They all have great comic timing and had gave a great impact in our lives. For Hathaway and Franco they're only funny ONLY for their respective genres. Franco more into stoner jokes, Hathaway can only go for rom-com.
  • More weirdly, I'm quite sure that it would be that moment where Hathaway would show off her dress on stage. Maybe from Versace, or Tom Hardy. Best dressed at every show. Great fashion sense, but what has it got to do with the main points of the Oscars (which is movies?)
When I watched the Oscars almost nine months ago, it was a pity to see that Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin had done the worst job into becoming the worst duos with no timing. We wanted to see the moment where Hugh Jackman last year had entertained us with an opening monologue turned to a funny musical (featuring Hathaway, although it was unintended).

But I wouldn't care about the hosts. I would care about the quality of the Oscars. For 3 years, a Hollywood studio had never had a movie winning Best Picture. The last movie to win Best Picture and it was produced by Hollywood was Martin Scorsese's The Departed. But because of the recent decisions by the Academy (like nominating ten movies for Best Picture, choosing actors since they are known in their generation), these days, the Oscars has lost its mainstream look and can only focus on arthouse and indie movies (Precious, An Education, No Country for Old Men to list a few). Now the appeal feels so boring as we are watching a two hour speech fest.

For a quick outlook on which movies I think shoud be nominated for Best Picture here are a few posters. But these movies can be overlooked.


  1. Certainly not sure what to make of this as of yet. Obviously you have some ideas, but I am still mulling it over to come up with one myself. They tried this in the past with Hugh Jackman, and as much as I like him as an actor, I didn't think much of him as an Oscar host. He had some good moments, but over all I would call his night uneven. Great blog.

  2. Hugh Jackman did work as an Oscar host. Remember that opening monologue. It was zany! And he hosted some awards before. The Tonys for example.