All Signs Are Pointing to Jackman

The LA Times’ Patrick Goldstein talks up the decision to go with two different producers this year and seems to suggest that the host will once again be Hugh Jackman. The question remains, though – how much of the show’s success last year was on Jackman and how much was on the Condon/Mark combo?:

Still, it’s a safe, emergency-swing style choice. More than anything else, it reflects the fact that the show put on by last year’s producer team was a hit with many industry insiders, in large part because it earned the telecast its first major ratings bump in years. With Shankman’s background as a dancer, choreographer and director of musical films, it’s a pretty safe bet that the show won’t stray far from last year’s formula.

In fact, the safest bet of all is that Hugh Jackman will be offered a return engagement as the show’s host. Whether Jackman takes the gig or not is anyone’s guess. But having another producer with roots in musical theater makes it obvious that the show won’t stray far from the formula that produced solid ratings a year ago.

Am I excited? Overcome with anticipation? Not especially. As devoted readers may remember, I thought last year’s show was dreary and dull, with too little innovation and too many kitschy music numbers. In an odd way, that makes me something of a traditionalist. If the academy isn’t willing to blow up the whole awards show template and start fresh, then the best choice for a host would be a comedian, since the best way to break the tedium of three hours of acceptance speeches is by supplying a few good laughs.

I think Jackman is an okay choice – I’d probably want to see someone funny, like Steve Carell or Ricky Gervais.¬†¬† Billy Crystal, I still think, is the one man who can truly save the Oscars. I’m just going to repeat it like a mantra until it comes true.