A Memorial for "In Memorium"
Saturday, March 16, 2024 at 12:14PM One last piece on an individual moment from Oscar night?
by Baby Clyde
They couldn’t have started off the In Memoriam segment of the 96th Annual Academy Awards, in a more sober fashion. Recently assassinated Russian opposition leader and subject of last year's Best Documentary winner Alexei Navalny appears on screen, speaking directly to the audience. It’s a bold, surprising opener, somewhat at odds with the slick, professional and ever so slightly dull show that made up the rest of the runtime. This grim reminder of a world outside the Hollywood bubble gives absolutely no indication of the calamitous 4 minutes we're about to endure...
It’s not immediately obvious that things are about to go spectacularly off the rails as the picture cuts to a string quarter playing the suitably titled "Time to Say Goodbye". From a screen in the distance Dumbledore sonorously muses on the subject of mortality, whilst esteemed director Norman Jewison flashes by so quickly you barely see him. But it’s a brief flicker on the far right hand side of the stage that signals alarm. Interpretative dance. THERE’S INTERPRETIVE DANCE!!! What in the Debbie Allen is going on???
With a screen too small to read the names or recognise the faces of any but the most famous tributees, we have no idea who ‘Deborah’ is when she briefly pops up between entertainment icons Harry Belafonte and Alan Arkin. We can’t see the details. ‘Bo’ seems nice, but I don’t know what he did. They must know this is a problem. Obviously the screen is about to enlarge and move the dearly departed front and centre.
But no, the camera does the exact opposite. Moving even further away, making it even harder to see the blurred images in the background, the stage is now invaded by a troupe of blue robe temple dwellers from Dune, twatting about like they’re all monged out on spice. What have Chita Rivera and Piper Laurie done to deserve this??? Glynis Johns is regretting reaching her centenary.
There are now dozens of people on the stage distracting from the serious proceedings at hand. Poor Cynthia Weil is shoved to the side screens in order to make room. Just as you think it can’t get any more cluttered, we cut to a 40 piece orchestra and the unmistakable voice of Italian popera heartthrob Andrea Bocelli is introduced to the mix. Ryuichi Sakamoto does not look impressed.
We now dispense with the In Memoriam entirely as Andrea and his admittedly hot son appear in the first close-up of the entire tribute. It’s slightly odd to be highlighting the living when the focus is supposed to be those that have recently left us. Instead, some weird test tube situation emerges where faces are placed on oblongs behind. The string quartet valiantly plugs away, the interpretive dancers mill about confused and Bocelli & Son honk on in beautiful harmony. Dead luminaries are a total afterthought at this point. There’s a lot of blue.
Whilst the Isadora Duncan tribute act engage in a frenzied gavotte, we skip past TV legend Mathew Perry, former Academy President John Bailey and famed stand-up comedian Richard Lewis. I’m not mad that there seems to be a dearth of big name Movie Stars to feature this year although a new camera angle means that the text is now entirely unreadable. Timothy Chalamet may have passed for all we know cos WE CAN’T READ ANYONE’S NAMES!!!!
And then it abruptly ends. Carl Weathers into William Friedkin seems to get the temple dwellers attention as they all turn to face the screen just in time for two time Best Actress winner Glenda Jackson to be unceremoniously barged out of the way by "Auntie Entity" from Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome. Andrea hits a prolonged wobbly bum note and the whole debacle’s over.
The applause is amusingly muted. The standing ovation half hearted. I loved every minute.
Reader Comments (10)
This segment used to be great-now it’s getting continuously embarrassing. TCM is the only institution that can produce a class act tribute.
Is it just me, or if you were nominated/won an Oscar do you think those roles should be featured? Glynis John’s was shown for Mary Poppins, but not a snippet from The Sundowners? Piper Laurie can’t have The Hustler & Carrie?
Do you think there would’ve been an outcry if Matthew Perry and/or Tina Turner were excluded? I remember Tina more from Tommy then her one film role, Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome.
Sorry but I find this article so 'offended-era' that I'm surprised that is not signed by Sasha Stone.
I've found it one of the less boring In Memoriam of the last years. Bocelli and son were chef's kiss.
I've reached the age in which I've outgrown film prognostication and regular trips to the cinema, so the In Memoriam segment is actually more meaningful to me than the rest of the Oscars telecast. It is so easy to get right, and yet the producers fail, year after year.
Here's one approach.
1. Introduce the live performer (identified on the screen by name for viewers to read) and allow a few seconds for the singer/musician to perform on stage next to the words "In Memoriam". Once the montage starts, devote all four corners of the TV screen to it. Never cut away to the stage. If you must, show the singer/musician in a circular inset toward the bottom left, on for maybe 5-10 seconds, then off for 30 seconds, then repeat.
2. Until the next global pandemic (when at least twice as many people die), have the montage display one name at a time; no sharing of the screen. One exception: if you have a Carrie Fisher/Debbie Reynolds situation, maybe place them back to back, with a shared moment in between.
3. Anchor the montage with a strong opener, a strong closer, and a few big names in between. We know these are big because they get multiple images, a video, an audio clip, maybe something with them holding an Oscar if they've won.
4. Make the montage as long as it needs to be, but recognize the limitations and reality of the format. People will always complain about who gets left out. A lot of these complaints are very stupid.
5. At the same time, realize that In Memoriam means something to many viewers and that screwing it up sends the wrong message. This year's message came in loud and clear. "Michael Lerner and Burt Young were Oscar nominees, and we left them out of the montage and threw their names in at the end. Good luck reading that, and let this be a lesson to every living nominee: you're not worth our time, and we don't really care about you when you die."
Most of this year's montage (the compilation and editing) wasn't too bad, but its staging was terrible. It's a bit of a generalization, but older viewers tend to care about In Memoriam, so making the montage harder to see and read is incredibly dumb.
Basic competence is, apparently, a lot to ask of an Oscar producer. Just a few years ago, a very well paid team of professionals, including Steven Soderbergh, decided that the best way to end an Oscar ceremony was to assume that Chadwick Boseman's widow, who is neither an actress nor a professional speechmaker, would give a rallying cry for the ages, better than anything a room of actors and actresses have ever done or could ever do.
Unfortunately for them, karma intervened with an upset winner who wasn't there, and an uncharismatic presenter accepting the award on his behalf. It was the most anticlimactic ending possible, all of it entirely preventable, and the producers got what they deserved.
In a relatively nicely produced telecast, I do think the In Memoriam was the most failed segment of the night. They committed two egregious errors, which you've already mentioned: Can't read the names and involving a distracting live element (in this case, several). ANd you didn't even mention that worst part... the list of names that actually ends the segment which, at best, reads as lazy and at worst, horrendously offensive. Sorry, Normal Lear, no time to show your photo.
I don't know why award shows want to overcomplicate this part. The most difficult is obviously figuring out who to include (or exclude), but once you have that list... just pick some nice music, show us their photos/clips/names. That's it! That's all we want!
The Oscars In Memoriam segment is a complete mess. It is such a simple thing to do. Hire a fantastic singer to deliver a gorgeous, stripped down dirge, and remind us of who died in the last year. Easy.
It is not a song and dance showcase. It is a time to celebrate and remember showbiz legends we lost. Even if you don't know the names, you know their projects.
The BAFTAs did it right. Hannah Waddingham delivered a beautiful rendition of "Time After Time." But the folks who passed were the focus.
This used to be an Oscar highlight. Now it is a disrespectful display that blasphemes the dead rather than honoring them.
Gallavich, how DARE you compare any writer on this website to the once-delightful but now heinously narcissistic Sasha Stone. Baby Clyde, there isn't an ounce of Stone in your article. I enjoyed your sentiments and humor. A satisfying and economic read with which I thoroughly concur.
I don't like the way these long careers are acknowledged with 2 secs of barely seen screen time.
I think the Academy needs to produce a show of it's own to give these entertainers and craftsmen their proper due.
I never saw that segment but.... how do you fuck that up? No seriously Academy.... HOW DO YOU FUCK THAT UP?!!!! No more memorium segments. They fucked it up bad and should be DELETED from the ceremonies.
I never watch this segment.
Thank you for this write-up, which captures my utter dismay at this segment as it unfolded. The In Memoriam segment should be so simple and they keep fucking it up! Easily the worst part of an otherwise well-executed ceremony. At least the Bocellis are hot?