This year the Academy attempted to give their presentations a sense of legacy. By having a wave of presenters who represented past winners in the category, nominees got a sense of the talent that the winner would be joining. In theory it was a nice idea, giving a grander sense to the history of the Oscars. In practice, however, it was a disaster, replacing the typical clips that show why a person was nominated with long winded speeches about why the person was nominated. Hopefully, this is a disaster the Academy will avoid in the future.
How could such an excellent idea be executed so terribly? Actually, the execution shouldn’t surprise us. It feels like every time the Academy attempts to pay homage to its long history, the viewers suffer, whether it’s lining up all of the living Oscar winners to recognize their former accomplishments, or having five different presenters honor the current nominees with praise. Here specifically are a few reasons why this year’s attempt at presenting nominees was a big mistake.
It turned the artist into the critic
I know quite a few actors who love their job because they get to bring someone else’s words to life. They get to create a character, but don’t have to figure out what to say themselves. Not that I’m giving full credit to the presenters for what they had to say about their respective nominees (I’m sure they had writers helping them), but this complimentary presentation style put too much emphasis on the opinions of the presenters. Winning an Oscar in the past doesn’t give their opinion more power than others, particularly those whose job is to give their opinions. Besides, I don’t think there was a single presenter up there who doesn’t have an embarrassing selection somewhere in their career, showing their opinion may not always be the best. Leave the critiques of performances to those who aren’t judged on their own performances.
It put the spotlight in the wrong place
The Oscar presentation should be about the nominees - recognizing those who have accomplished the best from the previous year, and singling out the best of the best. That’s all part of that, “it’s an honor just to be nominated,” bit, right? By putting so much focus on the award presenters, it shifts the spotlight off of those nominated and onto the presenters. I know in my household we stopped paying attention to the nominees and started guessing who was going to present - would they pick Sally Field (whose Oscar classic acceptance moment wasn’t even used in the montage) or Halle Berry? Berry, by the way, didn’t help the spotlight being shifted at all, by comparing her nominee’s film (Melissa Leo in Frozen River) to her own Oscar nomination. Who is this evening about, Berry or Leo? It would have done well for the presenter to remember that.
Not all former Oscar winners are equal
Obviously, the intent of having five former winners present the awards was to build a sense of legacy - these are all people who previously won, and soon another will join them. While it might be cool receiving compliments from the like of Sir Anthony Hopkins or Tilda Swinton, not everyone wants to get their praise from former winners. Look at Robert Downey Jr, who had his nomination presented by Cuba Gooding Jr, who has followed up his Academy win with movies like Snow Dogs, Rat Race, and Daddy Day Camp, and who proceeded to turn his compliments of Downey into a (hopefully humorous) complaint about taking roles away from black people. Just because these people won an award in the past doesn’t always make them a proud example of what an Oscar winner should be.
Nobody saw these movies anyway
One of the repeating jokes of the evening was how host Hugh Jackman and presenters like Jack Black hadn’t actually seen all of the movies nominated for Oscars - a sentiment I’d say probably holds true for a lot of the viewing audience. I always look forward to the Oscars’ awards presentations because they put a spotlight on one key moment of the film - an outstanding performance or pivotal creation on film. Often, the power of that one brief clip is what compels me to finally see a movie I had put off or otherwise ignored. This year we got no clips, especially in the acting categories, so I don’t feel all that intrigued in finding out why some of these winners took top honors. If I were a studio exec, I’d be more than slightly annoyed with this presentation format, knowing that losing out on that brief screen time may have just cost me additional ticket sales or rentals.
