My Notes to the Academy Awards

Last night I watched the Academy Awards. I like to. I'm not one of those people that complains about how bad the host is or how long it is (though I do think it's long). The problem is that a few weeks ago, I watched the BAFTA's (the British academy awards) for the first time ever and it helped me pinpoint my issues with our Academy Awards.

The BAFTA's, from what I gathered, are about the work. They don't waste time on unnecessary crap. They stick to the major categories, they play more than five second clips to feature the actor's work, or a particular movie and the winners don't have to worry about getting their speeches cut off because they go too long. To their credit, I find the Brits don't tend to spend half an hour of their speeches just throwing out names of people they just have to thank on air, which I thank them for.  The BAFTA's are not perfect and admittedly, do not have the same grandeur, if you will, of the Academy Awards but I really think the Oscar's could take a few pointers from them.

Now, a while back I read a book about the Academy Awards (I wish I could remember the name). It talked about the whole process, from the voting to the production of the actual show. It gave you a sense of the importance of actually putting on a show, not just the awards portion. So, I get it. It needs to be entertaining and preferably original (as original as you can be while keeping it the same!) in order to have an audience while also getting the job done of handing out awards. The problem is that they try to cram so much in there while bringing it in in under three and a half hours which hardly ever happens, that it's ridiculous. 

They've been doing it how many years? And they can't figure out to make that happen? Really? They either need to accept that it's really a four hour show or cut some of the crap out already. Well, Academy, here are my notes:

* Don't have a host take up 10 minutes right off the bat trying to be funny. A quick hello and a couple of jokes will do. If you're going to take up more time than that, make sure it's original and hilarious, otherwise, you're just wasting our time.

* Take out the short (documentary, animated and live action) categories. How many of the people watching at home ever actually see these shorts? No, really, how many?

* Take out the sound (editing and mixing) categories. I actually find the whole sound thing interesting, but if I'm being honest, when I watch a movie, seldom do I think about the fact that the sound mixing was so great they should get an award.

* Do we really need a dance number? Hoonestly? I think not.'Nough said.

* Lastly, to the winners: We know this is your moment. You've been dreaming of it and practicing it since you were five when the Oscar was represented by a shampoo bottle and now, you're holding the real thing, but remember, we have to watch too. Keep it short, or if you can't, at least keep it interesting. Don't just stand there  hemming and hawing, naming everyone who's ever spoken to you on a set and everyone you grew up with. I bet when you were five holding up that shampoo bottle, you weren't thanking your accountant , lawyer or the Kraft services people. This particular year, that distinction especially would go to Jeff Bridges. Ugh. This is why I watch on delay, so I can fast forward through that crap.

Honestly, it would be next to impossible to make any huge changes to these awards shows. Too many people would get their knickers in a wad, and I know that, but as a regular watcher it's nice to imagine what it might be like if those changes took place. Realistically, I will keep watching on delay and fast forward to all the stuff I don't care for. At least I can do that!