Who Should Host The Oscars Now?

Posted on Friday October 30, 2009, 10:15 by Helen O'Hara in The Empire Blog

Hugh Jackman has decided that he won't be returning next year to host the 82nd Annual Academy Awards - but who will take up the baton mantle envelope in his place? After the changes to the show's format last year, do they have to be able to sing and dance? Should they be devastatingly handsome and able to pop claws if anyone tries to run over the alloted time for their thank-you speech? Or is massive personal charisma most important? Here are a few contenders we came up with to take over the show.

Ricky Gervais

PROS: Everyone in the entertainment industry seems to adore him, and he pretty much makes Americans laugh just by turning up, which would make the opening monologue a doddle. He's been talked about for the gig for ages, and he's surely got to actually get asked one of these days.

CONS: His films haven't managed huge box-office in the US, so it may be that Oscar producers are worried that his appeal doesn't extend outside the industry itself. Also, they might be worried that he'll offend someone. And, let's face it, he probably would offend everyone.

Stephen Colbert

PROS: He may be the world's funniest man. Even during the tail end of the writer's strike without his enormously talented team around him, he was still hilarious. He's also well-known in the States, and slightly less politically divisive than Stewart, since many right-wingers seem to buy his more-right-than-thou persona at face value.

CONS: He may be too busy running for President again. And it's possible that Hollywood doesn't quite get the joke.

Jon Stewart

PROS: He's charming, he's handsome, he's very, very funny. He's got experience at hosting the biggest event on the entertainment calendar, and he's generally accepted to have done rather well with it, with a slight sharpness to his humour that deflated the pomposity without crossing over into nastiness.

CONS: With George W. out of office and the land submerged in a new wave of hope, the need for political commentary to go with the fluffiness may have subsided. That said, we're always going to need comments like the one he delivered following George Clooney's Oscar win. "Huh, an Oscar. That's the kind of thing that could get a man laid. How much more do you NEED?!"

Eddie Murphy

PROS: Stick with us here. In his day, Murphy was untouchable on stage, hilarious and cool and brilliantly original. And maybe it's still his day. If he can't win an Oscar for Dreamgirls, maybe he can host the Oscars and remind us all that we do like him, really. And hey! Jackman's a film star and he hosted, so there can be no remaining stigma for the job.

CONS: He may want more money than they're willing to pay, and the producers might be worried about some of the more diva-ish stories out there about Murphy.

Neil Patrick Harris

PROS: He was high-larious when he hosted the Emmys earlier this year, and like Jackman he's a dab hand with a song and a dance. As a chiefly TV actor, he isn't part of any Hollywood faction and isn't beholden to any of the possible nominees, and it's nice to invite someone into the backslapping circle every now and again.

CONS: It's possible that most of the big stars have no clue who he is, and especially that the old guard would turn their noses up at him. And hey, maybe his Emmy-hosting experience really did "raise his quote" (as he sang) to too-high levels.

George Clooney

PROS: Like Jackman, he's smart, funny, gorgeous and beloved by all. He also has wit to spare and a nice way with a tuxedo. What's not to love?

CONS: There's a very good chance he's going to be nominated this year for Up in the Air, and while being nominated wasn'ta  problem for NPH at the Emmys, it's less acceptable at the Oscars. Also, no one wants all of the writing and backstage staff to keep fainting in awe every time the host walks by.

Tina Fey

PROS: She's a goddess among women, who singlehandedly won the US election for Barack Obama (sorta) and has consistently been the funniest woman on TV for several years now. She has international recognition and looks darn good in a fancy dress.

CONS: She could be politically polarising in the US, and her self-effacing wit might not blend with the bombastically self-congratulatory tone of the awards. We see her more as the snickering-at-the-back type. If she wanted to do it, though, she could rock the kasbah.

John and Edward

PROS: Well, they get people talking.

Cons: We only have so much space on the internet, so let's simply sum it up like this: over everyone's dead body.  

So there they are, a few worthy contenders. Which would you go for? Who else would you consider? And what changes should they make to the ceremony (cough get rid of the silly intros from previous acting winners cough)? Should comedians get priority as Oscar hosts since it's the only way they'll ever get onto that stage?