The Academy Rumored to Be Limiting Music Performances at Ceremony

Kendrick Lamarr

With the Oscar nominations firmly upon us, The Academy has found a way to make the final month-long stretch to Oscar Night more frustrating than trying to guess who will win. With theaters boycotting Roma, and the current plan of the show having no host, one has to wonder where the controversial decisions end. It didn't happen yesterday when a rumor surfaced that the show would be going without another key piece of the puzzle. While there hasn't been any confirmation as of yet, there's a report from Variety that there will be limited performances by the Best Original Song nominees. It makes sense then why people are once again annoyed by this decision, The Academy Awards is a place to celebrate film from over the past year. If they won't acknowledge the music that goes into a film, then what will they recognize?

By the time that February 24, 2019 rolls around, there will have been enough content to suggest that the 2018 Oscar season is worthy of a baffling history book. It isn't just that the films Green Book and Bohemian Rhapsody have tons of controversy behind them. It's also in the identity crisis that has developed under Academy President John Bailey, whose short stint has included a notorious Best Popular Film category and the belief that technical categories should be presented during commercials. Beyond Bailey's new practices, the fact that the show is going without a host has been a dark cloud over the ceremony. So with the idea of only TWO of the Best Original Song nominees performing, one has to wonder: what is going on?

It is true that this is currently just a rumor, but it feels too plausible given the recent trajectory of things. Despite having five nominees, there is only two scheduled to perform for sure. Some are speculating that it's because of their popularity, as "Shallow" (A Star is Born) and "All the Stars" (Black Panther) both topped the chart in two of the most successful soundtracks of the year. While it seems odd that "The Place Where Lost Things Go" (Mary Poppins Returns) isn't making the cut, it makes even less why there would need to be a cut at all. Given that there is no host, there is an easy way to cut around the flabby sections of the broadcast. There is no need for an extensive opening monologue. There's also no need for interstitial skits that rarely do anything but eat up time. By shifting things around, there is room for "I'll Fight' (RBG) and "When a Cowboy Trades His Spurs for Wings" (The Ballad of Buster Scruggs). Considering how diverse the line-up is, it would make for an interesting celebration of film through music in ways that would benefit the broadcast.

By cutting back on hosts and music, what does that really leave for the ceremony? The Academy has been desperate to get audiences to tune in, but what is there really? Without any flair, there is no reason to watch a broadcast even with crowd favorites like A Star is Born, Black Panther, and Bohemian Rhapsody. They would just be winning awards that the audiences didn't care for last year and many years before. Really, if The Academy wanted to be "relevant" to a mainstream audience, it should amp up the celebration of film, not the pointless filler that is likely to be in the broadcast. At this point, it does seem like the ceremony is destined to be a trainwreck, and one that will be used as a cautionary tale from now on.

So while this is a rumor, I ask The Academy to please reconsider. Those who watch The Academy Awards love film, and to cut out the aspects of film culture is a tad offensive. Sure, it will make you reach the three hour running time better, but it becomes impersonal and takes away from the fact that this is one of the year's most anticipated awards shows. Winning an Oscar means a lot, and having low key acts perform gets them exposure to a wider audience. This is far from the first that music acts missed the broadcast (in some years they were totally absent, others such as the year Anhoni was nominated felt transphobic), but it's one that feels preventive given the high caliber talent behind the music. Please recognize that film means a lot to us, especially in these fraught times. To ignore its value by regimenting a tight, uninspired broadcast is evidence that you don't know how to do your job. If this holds up, there's a good chance that Bailey will go down as one of the worst Academy Presidents, a far step down from the forward thinking Cheryl Boone Isaacs, who brought massive change in a short time span. It's a bit early to judge Bailey's reign entirely, but it hasn't been getting better the longer he's been around. Please, just put on the music acts and let us enjoy movies in all their glory.