To my knowledge, MacFarlane has hosted three television events prior to the Oscars (so not that much experience), the most recent of which was an SNL hosting gig, which I have to believe was a huge factor in him getting hired (the biggest factor was his box-office success in Ted). I thought he was fine as host in a week of bad sketches. And he also was the MC for two Comedy Central roasts, where he was very successful both times. The roasts are the perfect forum for him: he can be vulgar and brutal, and is usually the most famous person there. But the Oscars are a whole different beast: to be face-to-face with the A-listers he thrashes from week to week and not be hidden behind one of his animated characters was a new challenge for MacFarlane, and it turns out they weren't so receptive to his shtick. I don't know what the host selection process is, but I have to think the powers-that-be get some feedback from the hot-shots, the actors and directors who fill up the first twenty rows, on what they liked, didn't like, and what they would like to see done differently. If the Academy wanted safe, septuagenarian comedy, they could have gotten Billy Crystal to host for the second straight year. We all know he's more than available. But I think they wanted to spice it up this year, get a young rising star with a new brand of comedy. What they didn't realize is that they were hiring human MacFarlane, but what they wanted was voice actor MacFarlane. The stereotyping and profanity is fine when it's coming out of a cartoon dog or baby or CGI teddy bear, as evidenced by Ted's (voiced by MacFarlane) successful cameo as presenter, but real-life Seth did not sit well with this crowd. I think it's important, though, to note that often viewers at home associate the success of the show with how the audience in the theatre is reacting. I think Seth knew that there weren't many Animation Domination fans in the Kodak Theatre crowd, and he tried valiantly for their approval, but the only way he was going to shine was to be young slightly edgier Billy Crystal which I don't think he's got the stage chops to do that even if he wanted to. Further reason why this stint was a pre-fail in many people's eyes.
There was an abundance of lashing out at MacFarlane on Monday morning in the press. Some pop-culture journalists who I respect called him the worst Oscars host ever. Offensive, Sexist, Racist, Failure were among the comments. Without putting too many words in their mouths, most of these people find Seth's TV shows to be an abomination, so there was going to be no pleasing these writers no matter what. But worst host ever? Pump the brakes, guys. I don't expect to see a worse Oscar host than James Franco while I have a breath in my body. If MacFarlane's a "failure", then I don't even know what Franco is. I personally think MacFarlane was the best host in 4 years (Hugh Jackman), and that's not to say that he was even great. I'm a Family Guy lifer so it's partly a matter of taste, but I thought the jokes were (for the most part) solid. He incorporated his Star Trek-geekdom into the show by chatting with Shatner from the future, who tells him he got terrible reviews for hosting and shows him the mistakes he made. These involve a song about movies-with-boobs in them, and a makeout session with Sally Field. They're mediocre skits, but he acknowledged they're bad, and follows up by asking Shatner how he can improve his reviews, and then does old song-and-dance numbers with the likes of Channing Tatum, Charlize Theron, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Daniel Radcliffe. It was a clever, self-aware bit. I think MacFarlane's pretty sharp, clearly he foresaw the bad reviews ahead, and alternately gave the crowd some broad sketches which he assumed they would hate, followed by some non-fancy choreographed show-tunes which he knew they would love, and got one of his warmest applauses of the night from it. It really wasn't an opening monologue, but rather a meta-examination of the absurdity of the expectations of hosting and the unsophisticated taste of the audience. It was a strong start, but as the show went on, the thing that bothered me was Seth's reaction to the crowd's reaction to his jokes. Whenever there were groans or indifferent murmurs, Seth either broke character and smiled and gave a "Hey, I'm just saying what's on the teleprompter" look or he addressed the crowd with a "Oh, come on lighten up" bashful response. I would have liked to see him take more ownership of his jokes. When getting negative feedback, he should have just smirked and said something like, "I liked that one", and moved on. You might not get a warm response this way I understand, but the way he did it was just digging for more laughs, which he got, but they felt more obligatory and not reactionary. I think the audience might have respected him more if he stood his ground. He got rattled a little bit, which is understandable of course. The "racist" joke that got the most flack was one about Daniel Day-Lewis taking his role as Abe Lincoln so seriously that he tried to free Don Cheadle when he saw him on the movie lot. Let's state some facts: DDL is a Method actor, Cheadle is black, black people used to be enslaved, Lincoln freed the slaves. That's all this joke is pointing out, how is that offensive or racist? I would be shocked if Cheadle or if any black actor for that matter was upset about that one. The one about Quvenzhane Wallis being only 10 years away from being courted by George Clooney was way more a shot at Clooney than the kid, and when you have it as good as George, you're free game at an awards show 100% of the time. I will concede that the other sexist joke about Jessica Chastain's character being a metaphor for women not being able to let anything go fell flat on its face, and would be in bad taste at any gala. And the post-Best Picture song-and-dance was not great either.
Overall though, Seth was Seth. He's not a warm, fuzzy guy. He's like the guy you meet at a bar through a buddy and is friendly at first, but talks shit about you while you're getting the next round for the table. But make no mistake, he's popular for his douchiness. With his very limited hosting resume, I think he performed about as well as he could with the writing he had. It is the definition of a thankless job. The closest thing I've seen to a great host is Steve Martin (solo). He's got that timeless quality to him where he still feels relevant no matter what. Last time he hosted, his monologal approach was the-faux-perils-of-being-a-movie-star-even-though-im-not-a-movie-star-anymore, and it worked really well. Chris Rock and Jon Stewart were also very good. Two hosts has not worked both times I've seen it, Martin/Baldwin (Baldwin would be good solo though) and Franco/Hathaway (worst show ever), but many people thought Tina Fey and Amy Poehler might break that bad streak, and would do it after killing it at the Golden Globes in January. Fey announced this week there's no way she would do it, good move Tina. Why would anyone want to host the Oscars? The risk of doing poorly so outweighs the reward (of being asked back?). Hathaway has recovered, but she still has nightmares I'm sure. It's still kind of following Franco around, and may for a while. MacFarlane also announced there's no way, even with the miniscule chance he'd be asked back, that he'd do it again. He tackled that white whale, got back to shore barely, and to everyone who digs his comedy, that's good enough for us. So we will wait through the sludge that are the releases the first three months of the year hoping next Oscars will be better like always, while Seth MacFarlane goes back to scuba-diving through his swimming pool full of cash, and (hopefully) the Academy turns on Adult Swim and learns to laugh at itself. Overall Show Grade: B-
Other Thoughts:
Presenters: I think presenters are the most underrated factor in a show's success. It's not about who you get, because you're going to get big names, but what they do while they're up there. The effect is cumulative, but it adds up to the overall viewing enjoyment if you get one failed comedy bit after another. First, there was some incredibly awkward and elongated Paul Rudd/Melissa McCarthy improv followed by the Avenger men (Robert Downer Jr. as presenter = zero laughs always) teasing each other about embarrassing moments on set. Oh, and let's not forget...
Kristen Stewart: When Seth introduced the next presenters as Harry Potter and girl vampire, my stomach turned over. Flashbacks of three years ago of a painful attempt at getting through reading a teleprompter danced around in my head. Sure enough, the nightmare was unfolding again. Clearing her throat, tearing at her unwashed (probably) hair, spacing out when it's her cue. Watching K-Stew on stage is utterly painful. Academy, just because she's a movie star doesn't mean she has to present. She's obviously mortified, we're covering our eyes, stop it. And, in a post-Twilight world, is Stewart still a movie star? Maybe I'm being harsh, but I just don't see the appeal. She was great in Adventureland in a supporting turn. But I really don't think she has the chops as a leading lady (for an actually good flick). I didn't have many shares to begin with, but I'm selling my K-Stew stock.
MVP: Channing Tatum. Whether he's hoisting Charlize around (and looking like he could take her home in a millisecond), or playing embarrassed, as the only great presenter, about getting waxed for the first time for Magic Mike, Tatum's undeniable likability was a cornerstone of the evening and his admirers grow by the boatload. Also, he's a decent actor and keeps improving. This dude has massive potential. BUY, BUY, BUY. (Oh, I forgot about Christopher Plummer being another fantastic presenter. Buy his stock too, it may be expiring soon...)
Musicals: Another thing Seth got blame for was the show's extensive run time. Pundits say it was his monologue that pushed the time over. Well, what about the half-hour modern musical tribute? Was that really necessary? If we're going to honor musicals, shouldn't it be classics like Singin in the Rain or West Side Story? Why do we need to pay tribute to Chicago and Dreamgirls (not great movies, good musicals at best)? They came out ten years ago, if they are going to have any kind of legacy, it has not been firmly cemented and we don't need to be reminded of them yet. That said, Jennifer Hudson's performance was a nice reminder that the most talented female artist title is still up for grabs, and her Dreamgirls co-star might get her crown stolen if she's not careful. All I have to say about the Les Mis song is, parents, if you really want to punish your naughty kid, sit him in front of a TV and put on a loop Russell Crowe singing until they've learned their lesson. Trust me, it will work. Finally, exactly zero people wanted to see Streisand sing a 40-year old song. (I did enjoy the "Goldfinger" singer though, admittedly.) There Academy, I cut down an hour of your show. You're back on schedule.
Michelle Obama: This kind of irked me. The First Lady presented the Best Picture award from the White House, but I have no idea why. This seemed like an excuse for the Hollywood community to remind everyone in case we didn't know that they all voted for this elegant gal to live in the White House for 4 more years. Did she even see Argo? I strongly suspect not. Look, we get it Hollywood, Michelle is a hip, cool First Lady and overall awesome human being, and we understand you're all Democrats. Why don't you let her go back to doing her bangs, and let Nicholson, the greatest Oscars celebrity ever, present the most important award?
The Winners: I went 15 for 24 with my Oscar predictions. The short films were complete guesses and I missed all of them. I got 7 of the 8 major awards (film, acting, directing, writing). The one I missed was Ang Lee winning for Best Director. I have to say, I think this is a major travesty. Life of Pi is spectacular visually(and got awarded justly for visual effects and cinematography), and is the second-best 3D experience I've had (behind Prometheus). But in a largely artificial world with mediocre acting at best, I don't see what is impressive about the direction. I thought Spielberg was going to win, but I was rooting for David O. Russell. The bigger travesty was the omissions from this category: Paul Thomas Anderson, Kathryn Bigelow, and Ben Affleck (who would've been a lock if he was nominated.) I liked that Tarantino pointed out the great work of his fellow writers this year, it was a well-deserved golden man for him, he really should have four or five of those by now. Jennifer Lawrence's fall actually helped her gain some fans because she was such a good sport about it, she continues to seem really normal for an actress, as opposed to Jessica Chastain who is SERIOUS about her career and everything that goes with the responsibility of being a movie star. I think if she had won and fallen, she might have broken down, but Lawrence shook it off quickly and now it's no big deal. Props to Hugh Jackman for his belated rescue off the stairs, very chivalrous, liked the gesture. DDL continues to astonish with his selection of words, we should keep giving him awards if only because he's like a poet laureate of acceptance speeches. And lastly, Affleck got redeemed when he won as producer for the Best Picture Argo. He talked about the canon of his career, how he was just a kid when he won for Good Will Hunting, struggling during the Bennifer/Gigli years, and how directing became a second wind for him. You can't help but feel good for the guy, he was down and out by all accounts, and now he's a great director, and seems to be a loving family man. Great Hollywood story. Argo's BP win over Lincoln, who many probably thought to be the favorite a couple months ago, is telling. There's no story Hollywood loves more than a movie about itself.
-Rex
Thanks for reading. Oscar night's my favorite Sunday of the year. It was really fun making predictions. Can't wait for next year's ceremony.
Follow me on Twitter @arm2001
