Why Will Ferrell Should Host The Oscars

Scouring the Internet yesterday, one could found thousands of websites declaring this year's Oscar ceremony somewhat of a national tragedy.  Many blamed Billy Crystal's tepid return to hosting, others blamed the producers' tendency to shove nostalgia down the audience's throat both via smug clips of actors talking about going to the movies and the Cirque du Soleil performance that was supposed to simulate the experience of going to the movies but did not resemble it in the least.  Others blamed the predictability of the awards themselves, with The Artist seemingly preordained to win Best Picture for months.  

Furthermore, several entertainment websites brainstormed about who should host next year's Oscars (if the world doesn't end, of course), and they came up with many of the same names, from Seth Rogen (who was great hosting the Independent Spirit Awards) to Chris Rock (pretty funny when presenting best animated film) and Emma Stone (who many found charming but was actually interminable in her Oscar presenting debut).  However, none of these lists included the person who should host the Oscars in 2013: Will Ferrell.

Even at 44 years old, Ferrell has many fans in the coveted younger demographic advertisers love and his position as host would make the ceremony worth watching to them.  He is always hilarious outside of his movies (as seen here) and his appearance with Zach Galifianakis to present Best Original song was one of the few highlights of Oscar night.  He has also been a great presenter at past Oscar ceremonies, so his inherent familiarity with the atmosphere would give him an advantage over someone like Rogen, who has only presented once.

Most importantly, if Ferrell were to host the Oscars, he would bring the element of unpredictability that Billy Crystal sorely lacked.  Everyone knew exactly the kind of schtick Billy Crystal would bring as host, and it made for unwatchable television.  Meanwhile, Ferrell is a master improviser, so the potential for an off the cuff joke on the level of John Stewart's Three-Six Mafia jab is extremely high.  While many might consider him too weird to host the Oscars, that might be exactly what the show needs, especially if the awards themselves are all but predetermined.  Ferrell is a big enough star that he can get away with saying just about anything in front of his peers without suffering the consequences (except he might not star in any Weinstein Company movies anytime soon).

Whoever gets the unenviable job of producing the Oscars should realize that Will Ferrell combines the younger appeal that Anne Hathaway and James Franco were supposed to bring with the showmanship and fearlessness of Billy Crystal at his best.  The Oscars might never be wholly compelling television, but naming Will Ferrell as Oscar host would signal to audiences that the producers at least have the ambition to try and make it so.

Award-Winning Actor-Director Pairings I'd Love to See

The other day, as I was trying (and failing) to fall asleep at around 2 in the morning, I found myself thinking about the Oscars. More specifically, I was thinking about people who have been nominated for them in the past and how I wish they would do work that good again. I then thought about some of this year's acting and directing nominees and pondered their careers up to this point and what the future holds for them. Some of them will most likely be back at the ceremony fairly soon as nominees (Clooney, Pitt, Viola Davis, Terrence Malick) while several others will most likely never go to the show in any capacity again (everyone involved with The Artist). From there, my brain made the weirdly irrational leap (again, 2  in the morning) to actors and directors who have had past glory, both recent and not, who I think could produce work that could land them in the audience of the biggest show in show business. Without further ado, here are ten actor-director pairing I would love to see along with the number of Academy Award nominations they have received in the past:

Note: number of Oscar nominations in parentheses


Joe Pesci (2) and David Mamet (2)
Weirdly, this was the first pair that entered my mind and inspired me to imagine further pairings. I have absolutely no idea how I came to think of this duo, but as soon as I did, I immediately hailed myself as a genius. The appeal of this pairing is simple and irresistible (unless you're an evangelical wingnut): nobody curses on screen with more panache then Joe Pesci, and nobody writes profanity better than David Mamet. These are not opinions, these are Coors Light cold hard facts. While Pesci may be taking it easy of late (he's been in two movies since 1998), short of reuniting with another director to be mentioned later, getting his hands on a Mamet script might be the best thing he can do to make people remember just how awesome he used to be. For Mamet, the upside is also great. While his abilities as a visual filmmaker may not be up to par with the rest of the directors on this list, he still possesses a unique storytelling style and verbal flair that has been known to produce some iconic lines in cinema history.  The Kings of Cursing should unite and make the MPAA blush!

Tom Hardy (0) and Martin Scorsese (10)
That zero next to Tom Hardy's name does not reflect his immense talent. I have a feeling that he will be up for a golden statue in the next five years, and I think Scorsese is just the guy to guide him to it. Nobody makes movies about the trials of masculinity better than Martin Scorsese, and Hardy might be the manliest actor working today. To this point in his career, he has shown that he will do absolutely anything for a role, transforming his body for every film he has done, whether he has to be svelte and suave for Inception or muscle-bound and menacing for Warrior. Hardy also has shown remarkable range as an actor, often within the same performance.  He can be equally charming and brutish, and the number of characters from Martin Scorsese films that carry both these qualities is tremendous.

Nicolas Cage (2) and Francis Ford Coppola (14)
Considering the length of both of their careers, I find it incredible that Nicolas Cage has never been in any of his uncle's films. Francis has seemed willing to help out his family in the past, though sometimes with less than satisfactory results (his daughter Sofia in Godfather Part III comes to mind). In this particular case, though, I think these two desperately need each other. Cage's troubles, both on and off screen, have been well-documented, and while working with his uncle might not help him escape his financial troubles, it may help him get out of creative debt. Meanwhile, Francis Ford Coppola, one of the most celebrated and influential filmmakers of all time, has seemingly disappeared from the cinema world. He has made a few films over the years (Youth Without Youth, Tetro, Twixt), but they were all critically panned and commercially irrelevant.  Both of these men might not have the motivation to create something both critically and commercially viable (each seemingly wants to do one and not the other), but in their respective heydays, they did work that I love and I can just imagine how much positive press they would get if they worked together. Worst case scenario, Coppola should just give some of his wine money to his nephew to get him out of debt and away from shitty superhero sequels.

Christian Bale (1) and Darren Aronofsky (1)
Both of these men have reputations of being very intense and incredibly meticulous, so why not bring them together? All of Aronofsky's films involve mentally unstable protagonists pushing themselves to their physical limits without the capability to stop. Christian Bale, with his legendary physical commitment to his roles, would make a perfect protagonist for an Aronofsky movie. It's already almost happened twice.  Aronofsky was one of the original directors considered for Batman Begins, and Bale was in the running to play the lead in Aronosky's upcoming biblical epic about Noah. Hopefully, the third time's the charm, as these two are arguably the most perfect match on this list.

Michael Fassbender (0) and Christopher Nolan (3)
If Christopher Nolan can make Christian Bale a movie star, why can't he do it with a man who not only looks like Bale but also shares many of his qualities as an actor? Michael Fassbender is on the verge of superstardom, and it's no accident. The guy does quality work every time out. Unlike Bale, he does not have a bad performance anywhere on his resume and he seems the perfect candidate to topline whatever Nolan's first post-Batman project winds up being. Nolan has always been great at filling out his big-budget action spectacles with respected dramatic actors, and right now, very few people are getting more respect than Fassbender. After working with the likes of Quentin Tarantino, Steven Soderbergh, and Ridley Scott, aligning himself with the most popular working director can only do wonders for his Q-rating.

Lindsay Lohan (0) and Quentin Tarantino (4)
Before anyone chastizes me for suggesting that Lindsay Lohan should never be allowed to work in Hollywood again, hear me out.  In his movies, Quentin Tarantino has cast a once-popular actor who had not been getting good work in recent years and gave them a lead role in a major film.  He did it with John Travolta in Pulp Fiction, Pam Grier in Jackie Brown, and David Carradine in Kill Bill.  All of these actors gave fantastic performances, and in Travolta's case, it netted him an Oscar nomination and rejuvenated his career. While the same did not exactly happen for Grier and Carradine, I think Tarantino can give Lohan a Travolta-like adrenaline needle to the heart. It could be argued that she has a career beyond saving, but she's still only 25 years old and if there is anyone that can bring an actor back to the heights of their initial fame, it's Quentin Tarantino.

Michelle Williams (3) and The Coen Brothers (14)
I have heard Michelle Williams pronounced the next Meryl Streep on several occasions on the heels of her third Oscar nomination (even though she's pitted against the current Meryl Streep) due to her versatility and ability to completely immerse herself in a character. One could argue that over the years, the Coen Brothers have created some of the most memorable and interesting characters of the silver screen, from H.I. McDonough and Marge Gunderson to The Dude and Anton Chigurh. To me, Williams seems less like Streep and more like a prettier Frances McDormand, a Coen staple. She has played memorable characters in her films (most recently Marilyn Monroe), but she seems to carry herself more like a character actress than a movie star. The Coen brothers specialize in creating uniquely quirky and nuanced characters, and I feel that Williams would thrive in a role like that.  If Carey Mulligan, with whom I see similarities with Williams, can play a key role in a Coens films as she will in Inside Llewyn Davis later this year, then Michelle Williams should be lined up for whatever the Coen brothers have lined up next.

Meryl Streep (17) and Steven Soderbergh (3)
Unlike all of these other pairings, I can't really give a specific set of reasons why I want Meryl Streep and Steven Soderbergh to work on the same film. It's not exactly a "duh" pairing along the lines of Bale and Aronofsky, but I want to see it equally as much. Streep is the best actress alive, and she has worked with many of the best directors over the years, but something about her working with Soderbergh makes me want that pairing more than any other, and I think I know what it is. Steven Soderbergh always gets remarkable ensemble casts for his films, and between Out of Sight, Traffic, the Oceans Trilogy, and Contagion, it seems like he has worked with every major movie star alive today. However, he has not worked with Streep, and my inner fanboy trembles with the potential for magic these two could work together in his next big ensemble film.

Vince Vaughn (0) and Woody Allen (23)
Wait, what? Vince Vaughn in a Woody Allen movie? That's like Barack Obama getting rid of Joe Biden and naming Rick Santorum as his next Vice President! Woody Allen would never be able to tolerate working with the leader of the Frat Pack, he's too obsessed with improv, and Woody's words are gospel! You should be forced to watch The Dilemma on loop for a week for even suggesting the idea! To everyone who just uttered one of these sentences either out loud or in their heads, hold your damn faces and let me explain.  In case you forgot, Woody Allen made his highest-grossing film ever last year and it happened to star Vince Vaughn's good pal Owen Wilson, so the notion of a former frat-packer headlining an acclaimed Woody Allen movie isn't so foreign. Most importantly, Vince Vaughn's schtick, talking in a whiny voice at supersonic velocity, is almost identical to what Woody Allen used to do back when he acted in his own films. Vince Vaughn may be the coolest guy in the room in all of his movies, but he could just as easily be the pretentious-sounding misunderstood misanthrope that is the hallmark lead character of Woody Allen's finest comedies. Can you believe Vaughn hasn't had a hit since Wedding Crashers?  That was seven years ago! I guarantee that if Vaughn got involved in an Allen picture, it would be the perfect shot in the arm of his slowly declining career.

Kate Winslet (6) and Paul Thomas Anderson (5)
Like Streep and Soderbergh, this pairing does not really have a superficial link that would signal them as a great pair in the future. At this point, I'm just thinking of the most esteemed actors and directors off the top of my head and checking to see whether they have worked together or not in the past. I really wanted to put Kate Winslet with someone because she has more Oscar nominations by the age of 35 than anyone in history. Before her career is over, she may approach Meryl Streep's record nomination total at the rate she is going.  When it came to thinking of a director capable of presenting her a real challenge, Paul Thomas Anderson was the first name that came to mind. He gave the world one of the great protagonists of the last ten years in Daniel Plainview, so when thinking about the possibility of Anderson making another film with a female character with an equally commanding screen presence, I could only think of one actress who could fill that role and make it iconic: Kate Winslet.

The 5 Episode Rule: How To Determine TV Drama Greatness

Back in 2007, I started watching a show on AMC called Mad Men. It was the first original scripted series the network had ever done and I was excited to see a real television show on a channel that only played action movies of varying quality (True Lies of course being the most abundantly played of the bunch). Its surface elements immediately jumped out at me: its 1960s setting, the beautiful people dressed in amazing clothes, the allure of Madison Avenue, and the promise of real historical events woven into the narrative. As I began to watch the show and learn about these characters, my interest was still fairly high through the first four episodes, but the stories of these seemingly soulless people were not quite grabbing me by the lapel.  The only things that I knew I loved about the show other than its impeccable production design were Don Draper's suits and Joan Holloway's gravity-defying curves. However, come episode five, when a major secret about Don's past came to light, I immediately found myself completely hooked not just by the style of the show, but the substance as well. Cut to almost five years and 52 episodes later, and Mad Men is one of my all-time favorite television shows.

The fact that I can recall the exact moment I became hooked on the show gives credence to a theory that I did not form until well after I started watching Mad Men. After that first example, I decided to test it out on some other shows that were either getting good buzz in advance of their premier or had already received the critical acclaim but had slipped through my cracks until Netflix saved the day. After several successful trials (Deadwood, The Wire, Sons of Anarchy, and Homeland to name a few), I have come to the conclusion that one can determine whether a dramatic series can achieve greatness after five episodes have aired. No complicated mathematical equation brought me to this conclusion, but I do believe that these great shows all follow a formula: great fifth episode equals great show.

The greatest mistake most television viewers make is judging a show based on a pilot alone. While a pilot can often indicate the quality of a show, it more frequently gets burdened with the necessity of establishing the premise of the show and the rules of the world its characters live in. The best shows can do this while simultaneously creating well-developed characters who immediately appeal to the viewer and make him or her want to know what happens next. Some, like "Friday Night Lights," one of the best pilots of the last decade, are crafted as short films both in their visual style and mode of storytelling. Usually, however, pilots are merely the first pieces in a greater puzzle that requires the viewer to stick around in the coming weeks to see what happens next.

The second episode of a good show is usually not as well-done as the pilot, but still continues to add more pieces to the narrative. It's usually shot several months after the pilot after a network decides the show is fit to go to series, so the continuity of the show from episode one to episode two is incredibly difficult to maintain because a rhythm of production for the series has not yet been established. The cast and crew are just beginning to acquire a comfort level with each other and doing that takes time. The director of a pilot is usually a film director (i.e. Peter Berg on Friday Night Lights or Martin Scorsese on Boardwalk Empire) that may be a producer on the show but is not involved with day-to-day production.  From there, shows usually hire a small group of directors who become familiar with the show's process and allow for a visual and narrative coherence to develop.

This process also plays out over the third and fourth episodes. The main narrative continues to move forward, more side plots and secondary characters are introduced, and the world of the show slowly begins to establish itself. At this point, if a viewer is still watching, either the main character(s) are interesting or the main plot begins to show promise, yet still retains the potential to fall apart (see: another AMC show, The Killing). In most shows, the three episodes after the pilot deal with the fallout from the events that happened in that debut episode. The plot points established in the pilot remain front and center and have the undivided attention of the characters.

In my experience, episode five usually changes the game and demonstrates that a show can sustain a high level of quality going forward. A new plot point is introduced that could open up the general narrative of the piece and take it in several different directions. A couple notable examples of this would be the aforementioned example from Mad Men or the murder of the terrorist informant in Homeland. By this point in the series, a behind-the-scenes rhythm has been established and the confidence in the storytelling is stronger going forward and actors start to add more interesting layers to their characters.

Even though I call this self-discovered phenomenon the Five Episode Rule, like all rules, there are exceptions. On the one hand, my favorite show of all time, Breaking Bad, took only five minutes to hook me, not five episodes. Conversely, a show like Dexter took a little longer to give the audience a true game-changing moment (when Dexter discovers his mother's identity). However, the biggest exception to the five-episode rule is comedy.

Comedies almost always take longer to establish themselves (if they ever do) and I've come up with three major reasons why:

1. While most dramas are one hour, most comedies are half-hour show, which inherently restricts how much content each episode can have. Comedy is so reliant on rhythm in its delivery of jokes that when the time one has to deliver the funny is reduced, the pressure is on the show's writers to cram as many jokes in as possible to make the reader laugh and worry about establishing a plot later.

2. Because plotting on a comedy is perceived as less important than it is in drama, it's much more difficult for  comedies to find a hook for the audience to latch onto in the way of a premise. More often than not, comedies create jokes from the premise instead of the other way around, which is what the best comedies on television accomplish.

3. As countless comedians have said, comedy is incredibly difficult, and crafting good comedy is doubly difficult. Good comedy takes time to develop, and whether it's a stand-up set or a television series, there have to be some jokess along the way that don't land to determine what does and does not work.  A great example of a comedy show taking its time to develop is Parks and Recreation. The show's six-season first episode has some charm and several laughs, but one can tell that there was something not quite right about the show. The characters were not quite real human beings yet and an overall comedic rhythm was yet to be established.  However, midway through the second season and on, those who stuck with the show began to experience what many believe to be the best comedy on television. The beauty of not having to be a slave to plot allows for comedies to take their time in developing a joke-delivery cadence and play with the formulas of storytelling structure. It creates more pressure to be funny, but it simultaneously presents a challenge that any smart comedy writing staff should relish to make something both narratively compelling and hilarious simultaneously.

From this point forth, I present avid television watchers with a challenge. Pick a show that is about to premier or you have not seen, and watch the first episode.  If it looks promising, watch the next three episodes, but do not give up if the narrative seems slow.  Finally, watch the fifth episode, and from there you can decide whether a show is great or not.  If it's not, then you have dodged a bullet and it was never meant to be.  I currently am putting two new shows to this test: HBO's Luck and ABC's The River.  Both shows are coming off less-than-stellar third episodes, but I'm holding off judgment for another two weeks because I have faith in the formula.

Rob Gronkowski: The Ultimate Bro

When he's not busy hanging out with porn stars, flirting with entertainment reporters, or showing off his Spanish-speaking skills, Rob Gronkowski has been developing into the most talked about non-quarterback star in the NFL.  He had the best statistical season ever for a tight end, setting records for most receiving yards  (1,327) and touchdowns (18) at the position.  The biggest story leading up to the Super Bowl not involving Peyton Manning has been the status of Gronkowski's ankle heading into the game on Sunday.  Other than Tom Brady and Eli Manning, Gronk has been the most in-demand athlete in Indianapolis this week.  This kind of attention is unprecedented for a tight end, and while I would like to believe that the attention is due to his fantastic play on the field, the reality is that his popularity has skyrocketed not just because of his play, but because he has become the perfect representation of the modern day bro.

In order to properly convey how Rob Gronkowski has emerged as the ultimate personification of bro culture, I will now proceed to use as many bro puns as I possibly can before throwing myself in front of a moving car (Wax broetic, if you will).  Gronk (no true bro would ever address him by his slave name) emits a brodor only emulated by the most brolific corporate slimeballs.  In every Gronk interview I have seen, he maintains a perfect broker (poker for the uninitiated) face while giving stock answers to questions from reporters.  He uses every interview cliche in the book, such as the classic "taking it day by day" or "I do what's best for the team," and he does so with classic bro cadence, over-enunciating  every vowel as though he believes that will satisfy the reporters who have gravitated to him like he's the center of the brolar system.

  

Giving these uninteresting stock answers to the media is the classic "Patriot Way" under Bill Belichick, but Gronk is the one Patriot who has seemingly transcended the blandness of said "Patriot Way" and made it endearing.  Perhaps his broad grin (pun intended) that never leaves his face stands as the main reason, but in actuality, what sets Gronk apart and elevates him to a seat on the Bro High Council is his voice.  The Pennsylvania accent combined with his forceful baritone diction and perfectly tuned brofaw makes for a truly brommanding presence.

Think about other great tight ends currently in the NFL:  Jimmy Graham, Tony Gonzalez, Antonio Gates, Vernon Davis, Jason Witten, even Gronk's own teammate Aaron Hernandez.  They're all fantastic players who are revolutionizing the way the position is played, and yet nobody considers them fascinating beyond the gridiron.  They may be classy (an adjective that has been used to describe Tony Gonzalez for over a decade), but classy is less interesting than a cricket match.  Gronk has capitalized on his amazing play and earned the admiration of not just bros, but all football fans, consequently becoming the most famous tight end in NFL history.

There are dozens of Gronk tribute videos on Youtube, Jim Brome (the voice of all sports bros) talks about him every with the brimming enthusiasm of a 12-year-old girl talking about Justin Bieber, and "Gronk" has even turned into a verb.  Whereas "Tebowing" is defined as assuming the thinker pose, "Gronking" involves throwing something to the ground as forcefully as possible to imitate a classic Gronk touchdown spike.  Even more amazing: Gronk has taken it all in stride, participating in many videos that capitalize on his brodom.

Of course, whenever a star emerges so quickly as Mr. Gronkowski has, there is always a backlash.  It has not arrived yet from the general public, but I feel bound by my duties as a broologist in training to warn everyone of the coming bropocalypse.  Gronk has become so ubiquitous within the pop culture landscape these days that there is a strong risk of a brovelution.  Soon, everyone will talk and act like Gronk.  Gronking will evolve from spiking footballs to spiking babies.  Bro will become the new official language of the United States.  In other words, if Rob Gronkowski's star continues to rise, we could be headed for a disaster of biblical broportions.    In conclusion: Go Giants!