Pop Culture

LET'S AT LEAST MAKE THOSE AWARD SHOWS INTERESTING

Awards season is well under way, saluting the best entertainment of 2003. Already, if you had nothing useful to do, you might have seen the Australian Film Institute Awards, the Aria Awards and the Inside Film Awards, to name a few. Coming up is the Golden Globes (next week), the Logies, the Oscars and many more, especially if you have pay-TV.

The problem with awards shows is that they're usually not as entertaining as the industries which they celebrate. Perhaps that is why last year's viewing figures were so disappointing. Based on media coverage, the main drawcard of movie awards shows is presumably the frocks.

Even the Oscars, which once (dubiously) boasted a billion viewers worldwide, were dogged by low ratings last year. Maybe more blockbusters should have been nominated. Or maybe viewers have just learned to expect tedium.

A pity, as last year's low-rating Oscars were the most watchable in living memory. For starters, they had some surprises. You know surprises? Those things that are found in so many great films? OK, so the Oscars usually go to more predictable fare like Titanic and Shakespeare in Love (whose wins had considerably higher ratings). But you get the idea.

Secondly, last year's Oscars had such highlights as Michael Moore's maverick acceptance speech. Whether you consider Moore a genius or a nuisance, whether you consider his Bowling for Columbine to be courageous reportage or irresponsible propaganda, it's great that he won. He made the night worth watching.

Now look at Jacqueline McKenzie. She's easier on the eye than Moore. In fact, she is always a favourite for photographers at the AFI Awards, usually showing off designer fashions. However, the one year she actually won any awards (two, in 1995), she was unable to appear.

Instead, her sister accepted the awards by reading two long and nauseating acceptance speeches, penned in advance by the actor. Jacquie herself wasn't present, to give these speeches their full gushiness, but the depths of her gratitude were still unbearable. This writer almost wished that someone else had won.

That's saying a lot. As many of my friends (and even some of the sharper readers of this page) would be aware, I think McKenzie is superb. She deserved those awards. There are few young film actors I like as much as her.

Except maybe Renee Zellweger, a tremendous actor (and awfully cute). Last year, however, her Golden Globe for Chicago resulted in a truly awful speech, as she thanked her co-stars: "Catherine, the beauty... I'll never forget it, the laughter and listening and being around you in your bliss. You're a goddess... Then there's Richard, my first boyfriend, even though he doesn't know it. Latifah, you are my queen [geddit?]... Rob Marshall, thank you for the gift. Not just the dancing shoes, but for the gifts that came along with them..."

Hoo boy. Zellweger was splendid in Chicago, but who wants to listen to that? If, one day, the Oscars presents us a battle between the wonderful Jacquie, the exquisite Renee, a hyper-emotional Gwyneth Paltrow, Julia "I'm so happy I'm going to babble non-stop" Roberts, and Christa from Survivor: Pearl Islands, I'd probably go for Christa. She would presumably be the least deserving, but at least she was ENTERTAINING whenever she made an idiot of herself. Her acceptance speech would probably be a treat.

That's how to make awards ceremonies worthwhile. Don't give the awards to the most deserving. Give them to the people who will be most entertaining. It's time that the Academy Awards not only nominated Jim Carrey, but let him win as well. When Moore releases his next film, make sure he wins -- and arrange Charlton Heston to present the award. Also, give Russell Crowe another Oscar... and cut him off during his acceptance speech. Then film his reaction.

Awards might mean something, but let's make the shows worth watching.