poor James Franco. i'm not going to waste time reading any reviews of this year's Oscars telecast, but i suspect that his work as co-host will take a lot of blame for why the show sucked. but i don't think it was his fault.
last Thursday he posted a photo to his Whosay account of what appeared to be the telecast's writing room. take a look, and make sure you note the large man with the Prince Valiant haircut, red glasses and blue t-shirt. you know who that is, right? Bruce Vilanch. for anyone who might not know, Vilanch has been writing jokes for the Oscars shows for over 20 years. some of you may know him for his uproariously funny work (NOT) as a performer and joke writer on Hollywood Squares. (although it might sound like i do, i mean no disrespect to Mr. Vilanch. he's clearly carved out a very successful career for himself in mainstream Hollywood comedy.)
this, to me, is the crux of the problem: the people who run the Oscars telecast still think we're living in a Hollywood Squares world.
the Academy acted like it wanted to rocket the show into relevance by casting James Franco and Anne Hathaway as hosts. this was breaking the mold! this year was going to be different! this would surely get the kids to watch!
the first sign of trouble in my opinion was when the opening montage (which had been pretty good up to that point) suddenly presented us with the aging Christopher Lloyd and Michael J. Fox in their Back to the Future roles. if you really wanted to skew younger demographically, i'm not sure i'd have gone with a reference from 1985. but that's just me.
i'm trying to understand what the thought process was in the writers' room when someone suggested, "hey, you know what would be really great and funny? let's have 94-year-old Kirk Douglas teeter out there on his cane to present!" or: "i know! we'll put Anne in a tux and then she can sing a really corny song about Hugh Jackman. and then we'll send James out dressed like Marilyn Monroe! because she'll be dressed like a man...get it?! that'll KILL!" because nothing skews hipper than a sight gag that Hollywood's been doing since Uncle Miltie days.
the only reason i even watch televised awards shows anymore is to read the accompanying Twitter snark. if Twitter didn't exist, i wouldn't even waste my time--i'd just watch the video clips online the next day. Twitter's the only thing that makes it tolerable. the only time i laugh is when i'm reading tweets.
during Sunday's show, the consensus on Twitter seemed to be that James Franco was baked. i laughed at all the tweeted Franco jokes as much as the next person, but i actually didn't think he was stoned. (though if he wasn't, he probably wishes he'd been.) :) maybe i'm old-fashioned, but he seems to come from a pretty tight-knit family. i guess i have a hard time believing that he'd have his parents and grandmother sitting 3rd row center just get really high before he performed in front of them. i felt bad for him. he could only do what they asked him to do, and they didn't ask him to do much. and the tone was all off. Anne Hathaway is a lovely, adorable young woman and a good actress. but she was coming off like a gushing, fawning cheerleader rather than a host. it would have been even weirder for Franco to adopt her tone. so he was left to stand there in his tux, next to Anne and occasionally recite some corny words written for him by a roomful of highly-paid Hollywood writers.
he was taking some bashing online for his backstage posting, but maybe firing off those photos and very short videos during the show was the only thing helping him get through the show. i was watching the video clips as he posted them and i found one of them very telling. James is with Jordan (Rubin, i think). he says that Jordan is the head writer and points out that it's all his responsibility. Jordan says there are other writers--that he can't take all the credit. to which James replies that, no, it's his responsibility. Jordan says James has improvised a lot. James insists that he's said the lines as they were written for him. watch. :)
what was the point of Billy Crystal's appearance? (and why in god's name was he given a standing ovation?) was that a nod to the 60+ crowd to say: we didn't forget about you--here's someone you know and love. and just to drive the point home--and make sure that the 80-somethings didn't feel left out--they also included Bob Hope. because lord knows, nothing says 2011 like a hologram Bob Hope.
James Franco often blazes his own path and last night was no exception. and with a mother like Betsy, it's no surprise. my favorite quote from this profile of her last week: "If your partner doesn't understand creativity, just find somebody else." from reading about Betsy and her husband, it's clear that the Franco kids were raised in a home where creativity was not only encouraged, but valued:
"My kids are very, very inspiring to me," said author Betsy Franco. "They are so fearless. I consider myself fearless, but no way, by comparison, when I see what they are doing. If you are willing to fail, you can pretty much do anything. If you pick yourself up and keep going, you can do anything."
James Franco, some will say that you failed as an Oscars co-host. i applaud you for being willing to try it. i'd even argue that it was the Academy and its writers that failed you.
and where is James Franco today? based on this photo, my guess would be he's right where he wants to be...back at school.
I didn't watch the Oscars for no reason except that I just didn't. But I like James Franco. Like you said, he seems really solid and grounded (as far as Hollywood folk go), and I suspect that all the poor reviews are really based more on what the writers gave him. Good on him for trying to do something that would have been terrifying to even the most seasoned actor.
Posted by: Stephanie | February 28, 2011 at 12:11 PM
Great commentary, dahlink.
I went to bed at 9:30 (even twitter snark could not keep me going), cause all I saw was the same stuff, only with younger (and uncomfortable) hosts.
Too bad, too, because I'm a big Franco fan, and while I could take or leave Anne Hathaway, I mostly felt sorry for the two of them last night.
Sleep was a great choice. :)
Posted by: deb | February 28, 2011 at 12:20 PM
I knew reading your thoughts about the Oscars I would gain perspective, and I sure did. thank you Marilyn for never failing to make me think again!
Posted by: Irene | February 28, 2011 at 12:24 PM
I agree, the most fun is watching it in conjunction with Twitter/Facebook, especially if you don't go to a party or have friends over to watch the program. I really don't know if Franco was stoned - it would seem pretty irresponsible if he did, and you're right, this guy IS a hard worker. He doesn't spend all his time partying at Chateau Marmont.
I don't get the Bruce V. writer thing - I think you're right. They treat it like Hollywood Squares (which died a timely death) but I'm not sure what it should be. Hosting such a big show is definitely hard. Anyone who takes it on and tries is to be commended!
Still, I thought Anne was lovely and gave it everything she had. When is she going to guest star on Glee, is what I want to know!
Posted by: Sam | February 28, 2011 at 12:24 PM
I'm not a Twitter person...but I watch the Oscars because I have ALWAYS watched them and love to see everyone; plus I love award programs anyway. This one was not the best, but it's not the only one that floundered. It probably was the writing, but James in particular will feel the fallout.
Posted by: Joy | March 01, 2011 at 10:12 AM