THB #91: Oscar Ass Covering w/ Dawn & David
THB #91: Oscar Ass Covering w/ Dawn & David
I wasn’t planning on writing about this. But when I read Pete Hammond’s happy laydown of whatever Dawn Hudson wanted him to publish to cover her ass (and that of her weak but well-liked president of the year), it demanded deconstruction. All quotes (except when noted) are from Pete’s transcription of the publicity event that this “interview” was.
But let me just say before the deconstruction… I am not against changes in the Oscar show. But if there are going to be changes, they need to be transformative, not simplistic and dismissive of some parts of the industry in the fantasy belief that no one really watches the Oscars for anything but the 4 speeches from actors and to see who wins Best Picture.
There is a reason why Oscar is still the highest rated award show by a significant margin. Some of it may be old habits. But at its heart, there is something special about Oscar and that something is being eroded.
It is recurring theme in my work and thinking that we are all too caught up in outcomes only and have lost the willingness to do the real work, which is to understand process and how that affects the outcomes we so dramatically judge.
Nothing in this industry just happens. Hundreds and sometimes thousands of people, working their asses off, making tens of thousands of choices along the way, lead to outcomes. Sometimes these outcomes fit our reasonable expectations. Sometimes they don’t.
The Academy is caught in a place that many are these days. Between the reality of running an organization in private and the desire to have a hugely popular public face for the organization.
The resulting problem is that over 10 years of losing faith in what the product they are selling is, they have also lost the audience. And none of them really know why. So they keep throwing the ideas they hear most at the wall. Shorter. Fewer categories. Bigger movies. More stars. More music. Hosts… if only they found the right host!
And while they try all this stuff, the show, already losing focus and audience, loses context and meaning… which leads to losing more focus and more audience.
When Netflix decided to bypass theatrical and still expect Oscars - an issue which The Academy has been passionate about for decades - The Academy does nothing. I’m not suggesting they kick Netflix out. I’m just suggesting they make adjustments that keep the playing field level. Netflix is a big company and can manage an adjustment to the rules. But again… nothing.
So now, the show has lost focus, lost audience, and lost the one singular perspective they had, which was an emphasis on the theatrical experience. (Something not lost on me as I walk the Academy Museum which is made up of hundreds of televisions and maybe 3 places that feel like a movie theater space.)
And the way they decide to try to fix it, with Dawn Hudson on the way out the door, is to de-emphasize the crafts that build all filmed entertainment experiences, not just cinema and not just streaming.
Oscar doesn’t have to die (or end up homeless). But he is heading that way because we are not seeing courageous choices… we are seeing the same old nip and tuck that we always have.
My original idea for today’s newsletter was to deconstruct the pieces of Oscar in a different way from last week, looking to open a window on rebuilding the thing from the ground up… which might mean losing the theater or all the live air time or indeed, some of the awards. Change should not scare us. Fake change should make us cry in horror.
Taking a hit on ratings for a year after re-conceiving Oscar is not a terrible thing… if it leads to the same idea getting stronger the next year and stronger the year after that. Change has to be about building, not about ass covering. Or you end up with an organization that is dying but pays off all of its worst employees in a big way as they exit, their asses looking unassailed and lovely.
This interview is Ass Covering 101.
Theme #1: It Wasn’t Me.
Dawn Hudson: “The board has discussed and agreed on the need to make changes to the broadcast”
Pete Hammond: ”Hudson told me in explaining that the board had given permission to make unspecified changes”
Dawn Hudson: “the particulars and categories were chosen collectively by the producers, AMPAS executives and the awards committee.”
Dawn Hudson: “The decision to show eight categories in our first hour in the Dolby Theatre was the creative solution arrived at by our producers, our officers, and our awards committee.”
So to clarify, the Board of Governors let Dawn and the Awards Committee gave a smaller group the power to make change… but the Board of Governors did not agree to this change or even hear it before it happened.
Theme #2: What We Think We Did
Dawn Hudson: “We thought how do we preserve our values which are have all 23 awards on the show, but still allow for a three-hour show that the TV audience wants to tune into, and other ways to celebrate movies within that show?”
Dawn Hudson: ”We thought If we can be the most respectful to all of our nominees and winners, how do we do that?”
When were you thinking this? Was it before February 22nd, when it was announced? Was it before February 8, when nominations were announced? How long ago did this specific “respectful” idea float around without being taken to the full Board of Governors or the membership, given that it has been talked about by members for many years?
The cut of 1/3 of the awards will save about 15 minutes for the 3 hour (minimum) broadcast unless they cut introductions of the categories, naming of the nominees, and/or cut the speeches down to 30 seconds or less, which perhaps could save another 10 -15 minutes.
But what is filling that space? If you assume they are truly avoiding time overflow, they might pick up a few minutes for other things. But they won’t know until they are live on air. What is the value of another film clip package or two over honoring Oscar winners… much less the Honorary Oscar winners who have been bumped for years now.
What they are absolutely not saving by cutting 1/3 of the categories is 1/3 of the overall show. These categories were all squeezed in the years passed, compared to The Big 8 (Picture, Actors, Director, Screenplay).
David Rubin: ““It was very important for us to have these nominees, have the full nominee experience, to be in the Dolby Theatre, on the Dolby set, looking out at those enrapt faces.”
David Rubin’s Letter To Membership: “Every awarded filmmaker and artist in every category will still have the celebratory ‘Oscar moment’ they deserve on the stage of the Dolby, facing an enrapt audience.”
Dawn Hudson: “We chose a mix of categories which would then be folded into our live broadcast.”
You chose the categories you think matter less. There wasn’t even an attempt at randomness here.
David Rubin: “When the idea came around to assemble everybody an hour early, and to have a number of award presentations in that first hour, where we can have the same environment, the same energy, the same celebration as we do during the live broadcast, and then preserve those awards and interweave them into the live broadcast seamlessly, so that they are all part of a cadence of 23 awards. Because again, our priority is to acknowledge excellence in all areas of movie making. And truthfully, most people, most attendees of the Oscars, love coming early anyway.”
Just bullshit. “Most attendees of the Oscars” are not people who sit in the section of the Dolby Theater that is seen on television. On top of which, this year is another year without a lottery, for COVID’s sake, so the theater isn’t meant to be full to begin with. They are already pulling a quarter of the seats out of the Dolby Theater.
If all 20 acting nominees - who you have prioritized above all - are in their seats for the first non-televised hour, great. That would be terrific, even if the situation still stinks. But there is 0% chance of that happening and everyone knows that… most of all David Rubin, a casting director. For one thing, ABC will be telecasting live in the hour before the live show and they need the top talent out on the red carpet with them and their movie-ignorant crew from whatever show they are promoting and using as hosts.
And if it’s so great, why are none of the Big 8 categories included? Because you think they are more important to the audience. Please stop lying to everyone’s face. You did have relations with the categories you thought mattered more.
Dawn Hudson: “We’re not losing any of those great moments. The point is we want all those great speeches that you’ve heard, and all the moving speeches that you heard will be in the Oscar show for all of the categories. And that was important to us. And that’s not an easy feat.”
Especially when you won’t commit to showing speeches in full or in anything close to full. You haven’t even been asked by the one guy given access to you (given access because he won’t ask challenging questions) what your plan is in terms of announcing all nominees in each of the downgraded categories. And as ever… you don’t know what the “great moments” are going to be because live TV is what creates those “great moments.”
What are most of what are considered great Oscar moments? The unexpected. The arrogance of this leadership is that they think they are smarter than history. Or that is the lie they present.
Theme #3: The Reaction
Pete Hammond: “the Academy has been listening and feels the changes have been misunderstood since an original Zoom call with nominees and affected parties resulted in some bad feelings and leaks to the press reflecting that.”
No. They all understood perfectly well. They hate this idea. It was thrown at them as a fait accompli, not discussed in detail in a Board of Governors meeting.
The Academy, as much as any flaw, has never listened to membership under Dawn Hudson. So much so that they set an annual membership meeting - which most members I speak to are quite cynical about - to hear from members.
The organizations has become a series of fiefdoms, each not listening to anyone else, pushing choices through. And Hudson has shown enormous skill in loading these groupings to her own benefit.
Michael Shamberg is actually suing The Academy after he asked that the Academy’s Mission Statement be updated to mandate “state of the art social media” and “an annual member survey.” The board of governors refused to let members vote on his pitch to amend the bylaws to include these ideas. Sounds a bit like Mitch McConnell. Maybe he can be the next Academy CEO.
Bill Mechanic - who believes in lowering the number of awards given out on the show and produced the Oscar show in 2010 - left The Academy from the Board of Governors because he felt he could not be heard above the politics that have been a hallmark of Hudson’s era.
No one is misunderstanding. Sometimes, they just think you are dead wrong.
It’s not just the bad idea… it’s the execution of the bad idea. Why must every important moment coming out of Hudson’s AMPAS feel sneaky?
Theme #4: How We Will Handle Things
David Rubin: “there’s also a lot of that other time, that’s involved in getting up onto that stage and finding that piece of paper and just looking to see if it’s time to speak. All of that stuff is part of it, but we’ll get to the most potent affecting emotional parts of the event.”
Fifteen minutes saved, if they are respectful. If they are planning to do the Tony edit of “Earlier Categories,” it will not be equal or respectful.
“Earlier tonight, Adam Stockhausen and Rena DeAngelo won Best Production Design for West Side Story. (“Thanks, Steven… We’re so happy”).”
That could save a little more time, but would be horrible. And not acknowledge the other 4 nominees, much less the significance of the category.
Also… dare I point out… 2.6 million total viewers for the Tonys this last year.
David Rubin: “I can’t imagine that we’re not going to deliver the Oscar experience that both the nominees and the audience have been wanting and are dreaming about. We feel really good about this plan. It feels inclusive and respectful and celebratory.”
To whom?
At least be honest about the purpose. You aren’t changing the show signficiantly. You are shortening it because you think someone will think the show is better that way. If you thought it was inclusive and respectful and celebratory, you wouldn’t have hidden the idea until so late in the game. If you thought it was inclusive and respectful and celebratory, you would have included at least one “major” category to be so respected and celebrated the decision… because it’s all the same, right?
Dawn Hudson: “We would not make any change that would involve taking a seminal craft, an essential contributor to moviemaking, off the show this year. It just would never happen.”
Except that, you decided that actors are more essential contributors than editors or production designers or the authors of the score. And note, “off the show this year.” So maybe next year?
If the show has to change, so be it. But as so often has been the case during the Hudson era of The Academy, they found the most emotionally disconnected, not game-changing way to make change that is not what they claim it is.
Theme #5: Blame The Victims
Dawn Hudson: “I hope that once they get all of the information about how celebratory this will be, this Oscar show will be, from 4 o’clock on… and how respectful it will be they will choose to come and not only receive the praise and attention for their work, but they will have that opportunity to support their colleagues too.”
David Rubin: “It would be a shame if they missed an opportunity to celebrate the great work of this year and give us an opportunity to celebrate their great work.”
Yeah. It’s the people who are unhappy with being relegated to 2nd class position that are the ones who are responsible to come out and support their collegues. How shameful it would be if they didn’t go along with our edict. Show some respect to your masters… who you pay… a lot.
Theme #6: Defend The Idiotic Twitter Thing
Dawn Hudson: “There is huge engagement. And that’s what I mean by there are a lot of movie lovers who didn’t necessarily feel as connected to the Oscars.” “Our mission is to advocate for the arts and sciences of movies. And so the more people who come to us, connect with us, however they do, we’re fulfilling our mission. But it is fun to see how many people are engaged with it.”
Movies. What are those again?
People engage with murder and porn on the web. We now know you standards, so we are now just negotiating degree.
Theme #6: Closest To Truthful
Dawn Hudson: “I don’t think it’s any secret, Pete, of the viewership decline for award shows or live television. ABC’s been such strong creative partners with us and we’ve allowed for a lot of experimentation on our show for many, many years, but it became imperative. We just had to make changes. We had to look for the future for this show and for the organization. Is this the right answer? I don’t know. We need to try this, assess, and move forward.”
David Rubin: “I mean, we’re also trying to find a new way of celebrating, to find a new vision for the show. There’s a large audience out there in the past years that has changed, that we have not been attracting, and we’re looking to have a bigger tent to bring everybody into it,”
Dawn Hudson: “So, after 11 o’clock, the viewership on the East Coast goes down, and you measure viewership up until the last commercial break. This is way granular, but if your last commercial break is after 11 o’clock or way after 11 o’clock, now you’re just absorbing all that declining audience and it impacts your entire ratings, which impacts your advertisers for the next.”
So there you have it.
It’s about trying to improve the ratings. And you know all the stories about how a shorter show gets better ratings.
Wait… you don’t? They don’t exist? Interesting.
You know what all those award shows that don’t even have ratings close to the Oscars do? They run precisely on time. Some pre-tape. But even the live ones. Even those scamps at The Golden Globes… on time. Where are the ratings?
How about the idea that ad buyers don’t buy ads knowing what hour of the show they are buying and what the ratings were in previous years for that specific time?
And remember how when the number of viewers of the show is announced, how they lower it because some people on the east coast tuned out late? Oh… that doesn’t happen either?
If you are going to admit you are giving it up to the ratings and to the largess of ABC, just be straight.
1. This is the latest date of an Oscar show (besides last year) since 1995. What kind of decision was that?
2. The last time the show has over 40 million viewers was 2014. Since then, the head count has been 37, 34, 33, 27, 30, 24, and 10. Do you really want to try to hang that decline on running past 11p on the east coast (and into prime time in the west)?
3. The Soderbergh experiment failed. But at least it was a serious effort to try something different and might have worked if… many ifs. Incrementalism is assured to both fail as a game changer and piss off the people who are meant to be in charge of their own organization.
Want to do something crazy and make real change? Do eight 30 minute shows for 10 of the categories you want off of the live show. One for all 3 shorts categories. Seven for the other 7. Really look into the techniques and significance of each category. Luxuriate, as best you can, in 20 minutes and then give the last 10 minutes to the live presentation of the award in the category. Offer it on all the Disney platforms for the entire week before the live Oscar show. Promote it like crazy.
Is it the same thing? No. But it’s kinda a great thing. If you are in that other group, you get so much attention all the time. But for people who care about the craft, a 20 minute show is a great opportunity. They would be watched forever… like the 3 minutes of the live show that get repeated on YouTube and Tik Tok ad nauseum.
Break it… but do something great, not patronizing.
And what would this cost? Maybe $16 million. That’s a lot, really. The Academy makes more than 5x that on the big show. If you want change, do something more than take it out of the ass of a handful of categories you don’t prioritize.
And probably, take this moment to add stunts and casting and maybe a couple more.
Maybe this is not a great idea. Maybe it’s flawed. Okay… it is meant to start a discussion, not become a show on my ego. All I am saying is, if you want to make real change, make real change.
What you are doing this Oscar show is just lazy, meaningless, sure-to-fail thinking… because it isn’t an open dialogue. It isn’t a serious conversation.
No one wants Oscar to fail, including all the marginalized artists this year. So do better. Listen. Please.
Until tomorrow…