What The F--k. (In defense of Anne Hathaway)

The Motion Picture Academy's attempt to cross demographic boundaries by hiring Anne Hathaway and James Franco doesn't appear to have resulted in better ratings, despite Franco's efforts on Twitter and all the talk of how engagement through social networking is the only thing that keeps viewers' attention. Whether Franco's disengaged performance was the result of chemical alterations or part of a graduate thesis project on celebrity will no doubt be revealed one day, but while I understand the ire that twitterers and critics directed towards him I can't agree with the dislikes being thrown in Anne Hathaway's direction. The job of Oscar host seems to me to consist of three tasks: the opening number/monologue (predictable but performed with spirit), transitioning between presenters, and the much more vague job of embodying the spirit of everything wonderful about Hollywood film. It isn't Anne Hathaway's fault that neither she nor almost anyone else in 2011 could represent the sophistication of Hollywood in the way that Bob Hope or even Johnny Carson could in their day. By reaching for one audience with younger hosts and bits like the "auto-tune" sequence the Academy turned its back on another and is now paying for it in bad reviews and flat ratings. That older audience is made up of the same people that voted for The King's Speech over The Social Network; it seems the desire for pomposity, ill-conceived dance numbers, and montage sequences was stronger than anyone knew. What really killed the telecast was the lack of surprises; if a main talking point on Monday morning is the Best Supporting Actress winner's juvenile acceptance speech then the show never had a chance. I'm don't know if award season is too long, but it is too crowded. Asking Anne Hathaway to make up for the conceptual mistakes and predictability of this year's Oscars feels like asking too much.