Roush on 80th Academy Awards
Question: The
Oscars is not the most exciting thing to watch and is hours long. The only exciting parts are when the major winners are announced. Otherwise I watch something else and only flip back when an award winner is about to be named. Given that the strike means the Oscars may not go on as they would normally, why wouldn't the writers consider revamping the show? I watched the SAG awards and was surprised how much better it ran at two hours long. It could have been trimmed more, but it was definitely more watchable. The Oscar people could consider making their show shorter.
— Christy
Matt Roush: Comparing the Oscars to the SAGs isn't really fair. I also gripe about the bloat of the Oscarcast every year — who doesn't? — but I do appreciate the need for it to at least feel like an event. The SAGs were watchable enough, but so perfunctory that despite the star turnout there really wasn't much of a sense of occasion. The agenda at the Oscars, like it or not, involves rewarding craftspeople you've never heard of (editors, sound engineers, cinematographers) who help make the movies as great as they are. The SAGs are all about the actors, which, granted, is enough for most spectators, but where would they be without the other collaborative artists? Personally, I'm kind of looking forward to the production numbers from Enchanted (one of the year's more undervalued gems), and I hope the strike is resolved by then so that Jon Stewart will get to be funny with the help of some writers and that the stars will get to show up in all their splendor. The Oscars is one of those spectacles that we love to knock, but for a true fan of the biz, it's hard to imagine a year without it.
