Before reading the article:
Did you watch the Academy Awards on Sunday night? Did your favorites win? Did you check out the red carpet looks?
Now, read the article, “Nobody Hosted the Oscars. And They Did a Fine Job of It,” and answer the following questions:
1. James Poniewozik, who wrote the article, compared watching the Academy Awards to “eating off a conveyor belt.” How did he explain this statement?
2. Who made up the “string of mini-hosts?”
3. What awards did Hannah Beachler and Ruth E. Carter win? How did they make Oscar history?
4. What does the article suggest may be the “secret” to awards shows?
5. What examples are given for the suggestion that magical moments are possible if people “get out of the way and hope?” Do you agree?
Finally, tell us more about what you think:
“What Do the Oscars Gain by Losing a Host?” — an article published in January — suggested reasons this year’s telecast may be just fine without a host. Kyle Buchanan writes:
… One of the academy’s oft-stated priorities is to trim the telecast to a slim three hours, and with no monologue nor a host to keep cutting back to, the proceedings should at least be shorter.
It’s here I should note that the host tends to be both the most overrated and underrated part of any Oscar telecast. Overrated, because after that first commercial break, the host pops up much less frequently than you might think, a format that allows presenters and winners to come to the fore. Outside of the monologue, you’re liable to remember only one other significant moment from any given Oscar host.
If you watched the Oscars on Sunday night and have seen previous ceremonies that had a host, how do the two compare? Do you think the Oscars are better with a host — or does it not matter?
Do you agree that the host’s role tends to be “the most overrated and underrated part” of the show? Explain. Nevertheless, if the Academy Awards were to feature a host or hosts next year, who would you like to see? Why?
