- 2016 Elections
- Special Reports
- Maps & Data
- Dear Abby
- Games & Puzzles
- Events & Exhibits
- Food & Drink
- Arts & Music
- Movies & TV
If you had given me until, oh, the end of time to guess who’d be hosting the 2011 Oscars, I never would have come up with James Franco and Anne Hathaway.
Oscars producer Don Mischer says, “What we have here are two really emerging talents who are very respected and are going to have, I think, magnificent careers.”
But, um, shouldn’t the hosts already HAVE magnificent careers? Isn’t the Oscars all about reaching the pinnacle of acting, so shouldn’t the hosts be at the pinnacle of their careers?
I mean, wouldn’t it make more sense to have, say, Meryl Streep and Matt Damon? (They’ve both proven to have wicked senses of humor.) Or wouldn’t it make more sense to have as hosts famous comedians who are adept at improv?
That has been the tried-and-true route, of course.
I do like Franco and Hathaway. Hathaway’s got oodles of talent and is one of those rare smart, pulled-together Hollywood actresses. Franco is a hoot of a renaissance man; he’s taking grad-school classes everywhere (the latest spot: Yale), publishing a book of short stories, showing his art in an exhibition, guest-starring with kooky enthusiasm as a serial killer on “General Hospital,” and, yes, starring in the Oscar-bound drama “127 Hours.”
I fret, though, that the producers have gone for Franco and Hathaway in a bid to court younger viewers.
Despite their abilities, I don’t envision them as crackerjack Oscar hosts. The show’s on Feb. 27, and I hope to be pleasantly surprised.
What do you think of the Franco/Hathaway hosting tag-team? If not them, who would you rather see host?