Franco and Hathaway to Host Oscars

The 2011 Oscars will be hosted by James Franco and Anne Hathaway. This is a surprising turn, as last year they were hosted by Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin. Previous hosts in recent history include Hugh Jackman, Jon Stewart, and Billy Crystal.

Billy Crystal hosted the Oscars for several years at a time. Now, the Oscars seem to be hosted by dramatically different kinds of hosts every year. Some might call this an indication of the Oscars ceremony having an identity crisis. The inclusion of Hugh Jackman tried to make the Oscar ceremony a more musical endeavor. Considering the fact that he was not invited to host again, this experiment was a failure. Then last year's inclusion of Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin as co-hosts tried a different formula with familiar roots: a comedic act from two people instead of one person to keep the action moving. Clearly, to some extent this was a success because they're repeating the two-host formula again.

This year's choice of co-hosts is hugely different for two reasons, marking a major change for the Oscars in an important way. The first major significance of having James Franco and Anne Hathaway as hosts is their age. These are young actors, appealing to a demographic far younger than the demographic that would enjoy Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin as hosts. This is likely a push to make the Oscars relevant to younger audiences.

The most common demographic of television viewers is people from age eighteen to forty, and making the hosts James Franco and Anne Hathaway is a large step in securing that demographic in a way that the Oscars have not appealed to for quite some time. In the new age where young people spread word of mouth about popular items through twitter and facebook, among other popular sites like reddit and digg, securing this demographic of viewers can cause a trickle effect of snowball marketing that can spread to other demographics, leading to high ratings. In terms of boosting ratings, this is a very intelligent move.

The second reason these choices of host are a significant change is even more interesting. James Franco and Anne Hathaway are both likely to be contenders for Oscar nominations. James Franco's performance in "127 Hours" is being raved about by critics, many of whom believe that not only will he get a nomination but a win as well. Anne Hathaway, while not being quite as well received as James Franco, is still generating a lot of buzz with her performance in "Love & Other Drugs" and very well could garner an Oscar nomination for it. This would work wonders for hyping the whole event, as it really rests on discussion from critics and the general public on one question: who do they think is going to win? The inclusion of some of the nominees in major categories as the hosts would certainly help to drive that discussion and build more buzz about handing out the coveted award. Of course crystal awards are also given out by private companies who would like to generate their industry buzz of their own.

While there is no guarantee that James Franco and Anne Hathaway will be the most entertaining hosts (considering the fact that they are not singers, dancers, or comedians), their inclusion in the Oscar ceremony will certainly get people talking, and that's exactly what is needed right now to keep the Oscars important and get people to watch the ceremony again.

The author of this article is 10 year veteran in the crystal awards and recognition gifts industry.

View the original article here

The Catch-22 of Oscars

The problem with the Oscars is everyone has an opinion, yet no one is surprised when they announce the winners. Oscar ratings have been steadily dwindling every year. People are losing interest in the value of such an awards ceremony where it's created its own market for film so that "serious" movies are geared towards winning an Oscar nomination.

The year 2010 has been a shake-up of sorts to correct that narrow Oscar-tunneled vision focus by opening up the nominations to include ten movies instead of five. This allowed for unconventional but well-received films like "District 9" and "A Serious Man" to be nominated and have a fighting chance of winning.

However, when the nominations opened up so much, everyone was left wondering the same thing: does a nomination even matter if as many as ten films can contend for best picture? Are there even ten films worthy of being nominated? Therein lies the catch-22 with the Oscars. They open up the nominations to expand their view of potential winners, but at the risk of diminishing their value in the public eye as valid judges of film by being too loose.

The Oscars have the difficult task of juggling two images. One on hand, they should stand for some sort of artistic legitimacy as a mark of excellence characterized by authority and therefore a superior opinion on the subject of film from the perspective of true filmmaking skill irrespective of public opinion. On the other hand, they need to be in line with the general public opinion or risk losing said legitimacy by being seen as pandering to specific genres and styles of filmmaking.

Last year, "Avatar" was by far the highest grossing and most popular film. It was recognized by the Oscars by winning all kinds of nominations across the board of categories. However, "The Hurt Locker," a successful but far less popular film, took the winning spot for best picture and best screenplay. Taking the less popular opinion does in some way legitimize the film from an artistic perspective because it creates a realm of sophistication around the film that the masses seemingly cannot appreciate. This is beginning to unravel for the Oscars as film critics are slowly coming around to appreciating more popular sci-fi and genre films that are seen as simultaneously entertaining and artistic. If the Oscars fail to embrace this fact, they risk losing any value in the public eye beyond signifying the opinions of snobs that have a bias to works with more "serious" subject matter.

The Oscars in 2011 have a tough task ahead of them: standing for and representing sophisticated artistry in filmmaking while maintaining legitimacy in the eyes of the general public. How do they balance the two? It's simple: choose the best film irrespective of its genre and subject matter. This is still different from choosing the most popular film, as box office numbers do not directly translate to superiority in filmmaking. But there is a correlation and the academy of motion pictures arts and sciences would do well to figure out just what it is. This controversy is just one of the reasons that the Oscars stand out as the premiere awards ceremony in the United States. Private industries nationwide have taken a cue from the Oscars, presenting corporate and crystal awards to their respective top performers

The author of this article is 10 year veteran in the crystal awards and recognition gifts industry.

View the original article here