web
counter
 

In Defense of James Franco

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Think Pieces | Comments (54)



1298900444286.jpg

It’s been two days now since the Oscars aired, and while yesterday’s news cycle brought a massive outpouring of knee-jerk disappointment, today has brought a more thoughtful, though no less disappointed, response to the proceedings that took place Sunday night in the Kodak Theater. Specifically, the media is dumping all over James Franco, last week’s golden boy of Hollywood, and this week’s fiendish goat. Two insightful and well-written pieces in particular, one at Film School Rejects and the other at Movieline, take issue with Franco’s brand of performance art, the culmination of a year’s worth of oddball projects, like the Saturday Night Live documentary, his stint on “General Hospital,” his Oscar-nominated turn in 127 Hours, his Funny or Die! pervasiveness, and his upcoming role in the Planet of the Apes prequel, all of which he managed while juggling a class load at NYU.

Both Landon Palmer and Mike Ryan were apt in the critiques, too. He shouldn’t have phoned in his hosting duties. Even given bad material, he could’ve demonstrated earnest effort, he could’ve amped up the Franco charm, he could’ve taken a fucking Red Bull and tried, instead of spending half the night backstage on Twitter. The dude checked out. That James Franco’s hosting performance was disastrous is not in dispute.

But there is a theme that resonates within these think pieces.

Each year, awards season rolls around in October and the next five months are devoted, in part, to assessing the odds that a certain individual or movie will be awarded with some empty recognition that almost feels disconnected from the films and performances. And each year, the external consensus seems to be one of apathy. “Nobody cares! What’s it matter! It’s just a stupid award!” Do a Google search the three days leading up to, and the day after an Oscar’s telecast and you will find the phrases “masturbatory,” “circle-jerk,” and “self-congratulating” more than any other time of year.

But here’s where Franco’s inadvertent genius is revealed: I’m not sure what he was trying to accomplish, or if it was indeed some sort of performance art, but unlike other years, the one thing that you can’t argue in the aftermath of this year’s Oscar’s telecast is that people don’t care. It’s evident in the reaction pieces. It’s evident in the disappointment. It was evident on Facebook and Twitter throughout the entire ceremony. Thirty-seven million people watched the telecast, and twice that number complained the next morning. It’s not just the media; it’s comment boards and social networking sites. People were genuinely and often passionately upset with James Franco’s lackadaisical approach to the his hosting duties.

So, maybe Franco did fail miserably as a host of the Academy Awards, but what he has demonstrated is that people do care about this Institution. We may mock it mercilessly, and we may feign indifference, but goddamnit, it’s not within a smug celebrity’s right to intentionally ruin our fun. Our fun should ruined organically, and not through determined laziness.

Indeed, by approaching his hosting stint with the same detached listlessness that many of us pretend to have about the Academy Awards themselves, Franco has inadvertently stumbled upon a revelation: We do care. The Oscars do matter. Maybe the awards don’t. And maybe to many the movies don’t, either. But when it comes to sitting for four hours in front of the television to watch a “self-congratulatory circle jerk,” we care more than many of us are willing to let on, enough to get outraged when the host shits on the Oscars. That’s our job, and that motherfucker James Franco took all the fun out of it.

If Franco’s intent was to hold up a mirror to the rest of us and show us how ugly we look when he pretend not to care, at least he accomplished that. Real or feigned, the “I don’t give a shit” attitude is obnoxious. Every time you say “Awards suck! What a meaningless pile of drivel,” you look like James Franco hosting the Oscars, whether the sentiment is true or not. Don’t be that guy. Don’t be James Franco. And maybe next year, we won’t be so quick to criticize the more earnest efforts of the Steve Martins, the Alec Baldwins, the Billy Crystals, and the Jon Stewarts.

But then again, where’s the fun in that?









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



8 Celebrities You'd Have to Be a Serious Douchebag to Dislike | Guns And Swords And Really Bad Hair: Devil May Cry Coming To The Big Screen









Comments

Yes he sucked. Good for him.
I think it was said here on another thread that there is a mistake made in trying to make this "entertainment".
When Carson or Hope or even Crystal did it, it was an awards show leavened with humor and pith.
It's not a Broadway show. It's not a comedy revue.

Posted by: Odnon at March 1, 2011 4:39 PM

He could've came out on stage and just sat there for all I care and I'd still love him. I don't care about the Oscar's. I don't even pretend to care about the Oscars, like so many other people out there. I do, however, LOVE James Franco. I almost wish I would've watched to see him do his thing, or not do it, whatever.

Posted by: Sarah at March 1, 2011 4:43 PM

Our fun should be ruined organically, and not through determined laziness.

I'm painting that on my living room wall as soon as I get home.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at March 1, 2011 4:48 PM

Exactly. Why would you waste your time watching something if you genuinely hated it? I love movies and I love watching The Oscars every year. I care damn it!
I agree that this year wasnt the best. I for one dont blame Franco. But I wasn't going to miss it. I knew that the The Kings Speech was going to win Best Pic. And as much as it pissed me off that it was going to win, I still wasn't going to miss The Oscars. You root for your favorites, thats the fun of it. Sometimes your favorites do win. I loved that Wally Pfister won Best Cinematography.
Whoever is hosting next year, I'll be watching.

Posted by: Junierizzle at March 1, 2011 4:54 PM

In response to my ongoing complaints about James Franco, Mr. Julien just keeps saying that he was nominated as well and probably just very nervous. Whatever. Franco was unprofessional.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at March 1, 2011 4:58 PM

I don't even pretend to care about the Oscars, like so many other people out there.

The hell are you talking about?

Posted by: Jay at March 1, 2011 4:59 PM

Almost makes you wish Franco had beaten Firth for Best Actor just so he could refuse the award...

Posted by: DarthCorleone at March 1, 2011 5:00 PM

And to quote Luke Skywalker, "I care!"

We joke and we kid, but watch how quickly I shut up during the In Memoriam segment for the most illustrative example of how much I do care. Art matters, and more importantly it matters how we remember and honor it. Show me a society devoid of that spirit, and I'll show you a society not worth existing.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at March 1, 2011 5:04 PM

I never watch The Oscars. I like finding out who won and looking at all the pretty dresses the next day.
I love James Franco. If the producers were shocked that he walked out with his phone in his hand ( I did watch that part), then they are crazy. Have they never seen Freaks and Geeks?

Posted by: daria at March 1, 2011 5:04 PM

I'll say it again: the only thing we'll remember from this Oscar telecast in 5, 10, 20 years from now will be Franco's hosting performance. Everything else (who won? who wore what? who slept with whom?) will be the flotsam of history.

So, in that sense, Franco has triumphed over everyone in Hollywood. He's the talk of the town -- far more interesting than any winner or nominee. And he'd be its #1 star right now if Charlie Sheen wasn't going on a "Hannibal rides an elephant across the Alps" campaign to destroy CBS and his own hit TV show.

Posted by: Fredo at March 1, 2011 5:06 PM

here's the reason franco was 'phoning it in', so to speak: he was butthurt.

his people came into my work and bought a bunch of super8 film that they were going to use to film behind the scenes the whole night. franco was looking forward to creating something of his OWN, and thought a really cool way to do it would be to have a very real, unpolished account of what it was like to host the oscars and what the madness looked like backstage. very on par with franco's latests artisitc endeavors, no? unfortunately, before the telecast, the academy changed their minds and refused to let him and his people do any filming behind the scenes. hence, the complete lack of investment in his hosting duties.

i do have this to say though, while he may have 'stuck it' to the academy by giving such a terrible go of it (and the ratings reflected this), it doesn't say much for his acting capabilities. he should have at least bucked up for anne, she was looking damn near crazy on stage trying to make up for his lack of enthusiasm.

and there it is.

Posted by: KB_explosion at March 1, 2011 5:06 PM

Course, you might've meant "pretend to not care", but you're still better than the rest of us, aren't you? Mazel tov.

Posted by: Jay at March 1, 2011 5:08 PM

Art matters, and more importantly it matters how we remember and honor it

100% in agreement. I just don't know if we can make those kind of determinations weeks/months since the artwork's been displayed.

Posted by: Fredo at March 1, 2011 5:09 PM

James Franco phoning it in has made me appreciate Anne Hathaway like never before. That girl was working it so hard, I wanted to hand her a towel and bottle of water. She came across as very professional, if increasingly crazed as the night progressed. Props.

Posted by: leuce7 at March 1, 2011 5:12 PM

Posted by: Jay at March 1, 2011 5:14 PM

inspired by the article on Den Of Geek this morning?

Posted by: idleprimate at March 1, 2011 5:17 PM

I don't pretend not to care about the Oscars, I don't care about the Oscars. That's why I didn't watch them and couldn't care less what Franco did or didn't do. And if thirty-seven million people watched the show, then about two hundred and seventy-five million people are in the same boat as me.

Once again: The Internet is not reality.

Posted by: Todd at March 1, 2011 5:18 PM

I seem to be one of the few people who had no problem with Franco's Oscar hosting performance. Perhaps this means I was a member of the admittedly very small target audience.

I recorded the thing and watched it in fast forward, switching to normal speed only to see what my favourite people were up to while on screen. As such, my Oscar experience was limited basically to the introduction of presenters and one or two of the actual presentations themselves.

Whereas other people seem to think Franco was phoning it in, I thought he was playing (quite well) the funny-or-die cocky James Franco that amuses me so.

I got the majority of my enjoyment from the fact that he didn't seem to give a shit. As for Anne Hathaway's efforts, I really couldn't give a shit.

None of this is to say that Franco did well or Hathaway did poorly. All's I'm saying is, as a matter of taste, I preferred the former. The fact that the vast majority doesn't agree isn't really a problem for me.

Posted by: Daventhal at March 1, 2011 5:34 PM

KB_explosion, really?? Wow. He comes off terribly whiny and petty then.

And frankly, I don't care. I just check the fug girls after for the dresses!

Posted by: denesteak at March 1, 2011 5:36 PM

I really didn't feel like he was phoning it in. His dryness was a perfect foil for her Lea Michele-ness. I enjoyed it.

Posted by: elizabeth at March 1, 2011 5:38 PM

It seems like people are pissed-off that Franco didn't "act" like someone other than Franco. He did his stoner schtick. He did his multimedia thing. He dressed in drag. He got his family involved.

Was he expected to write jokes? Or do a dance? If they wanted someone to be Billy Crystal, Billy was obviously available for the evening.

People are giving kudos for Ann being Ann; manic, all smiles, silly. But she made odd references throughout the show, was not funny, and did that bizare musical routine referencing Hugh Jackman.

Either Franco "mailed" it in, or he simply decided that he wasn't all of a sudden going to be "funny" and he played it straight. He realized he was given shit material and didn't force it. He hit his marks, he introduced who he was supposed to introduce, and when the head writer gave him the "Tron" line or stuck a Monroe dress on him he followed direction.

He didn't make fun of movie stars, directors, etc. that he respects and will want to work with, but rather took a shot at Charlie Sheen. he may have pissed many of us off, but I don't think he pissed off Hollywood. And at the end of the day that is all that really matters. Ask Gervais.

Posted by: L.O.V.E. at March 1, 2011 5:39 PM

Amen L.O.V.E.!! I thought the multimedia thing was cool and different. And Franco was just Franco.

Posted by: Mel C. at March 1, 2011 5:42 PM

Once again: The Internet is not reality.

So then, by you saying that it's not reality, does that make your own statement itself not reality, thereby cancelling out the heretofore not reality of the Internet, ipso facto, making everything on the Internet reality? I am between two mirrors facing each other right now?

Posted by: branded at March 1, 2011 5:49 PM

Once again: The Internet is not reality.

So then, by you saying that it's not reality, does that make your own statement itself not reality, thereby cancelling out the heretofore not reality of the Internet, ipso facto, making everything on the Internet reality? I am between two mirrors facing each other right now?

I believe this is what Immanuel Kant was referring to when he spoke of "phenomena" and "noumena" in which phenomena is what we experience with our 5 senses (which Kant stated was an illusion) and noumena is how things really are, which our senses have no access to and, therefore, is reality.

In other words, the only reality that exists is the Internet and the illusion is you typing up these words before surfing for more Charlie Sheen quotes or porn.

Posted by: Fredo at March 1, 2011 6:00 PM

Off topic, but this has been bothering me for a while. Dustin, you're a professional - by that I mean classy, not paid - so proofread.

Posted by: Matt at March 1, 2011 6:13 PM

So, Fredo, what you are saying is that Charlie Sheen really is a winning F-18 vatican assassin warlock with wolf blood?

Mind. Blown. Inceptioned. Meme.

Posted by: L.O.V.E. at March 1, 2011 6:16 PM

I just thought he was really high, and maybe a little annoyed at having to spend so much time with Anne. I think she would get on my nerves.

I don't want staleness of Billy, and I don't want the kookiness of the wonder twins, but somewhere in between would be nice.

Someone charming, clever, self-deprecating, and easy on the eyes....Clooney maybe?

Posted by: jayco at March 1, 2011 6:21 PM

People are giving kudos for Ann being Ann; manic, all smiles, silly. But she made odd references throughout the show, was not funny, and did that bizare musical routine referencing Hugh Jackman.

Yeah, what a stupid thing for her to make up on the fly. You'd think they'd write these shows out in advance so as to avoid their hosts making any sort of weird jokes like that or digitally inserting themselves into films or bringing distinguished actors like Morgan Freeman and Alec Baldwin up on stage to sully their good names next to your manic foolishness.

Seriously, next year they should, like, I don't know, hire a team of writers or something to prepare a show in advance along a common theme so we don't have a repeat of this bullshit of calling James Franco out for just being himself and people not understanding how he converses or sees himself in relationship to art.

Posted by: JakesAlterEgo at March 1, 2011 6:27 PM

Matt, email your spelling and grammar complaints - as requested.

The comments are for those discussing substantive matters raised in the piece.

Except for this one.

Oscars.

Fixed.

Posted by: Peter G at March 1, 2011 6:53 PM

I would prefer to see two presenters who openly loathed one another and spent the time humorously sniping at each other a la Don Rickles.

Maybe even a bit of physical violence after the 10PM hour.

Might jazz things up a tad.

Posted by: The Wanderer at March 1, 2011 7:01 PM

I was far more annoyed by Anne 'Look at me & listen to me constantly "whoop" inappropriately' Hathaway. Franco's always a tool, but watching her was like nails down a f@king chalkboard. Also, what's up with the need to change outfits after every interval? I'd love a show where the woman just sticks to one gown and that's it.

Posted by: I can sing too at March 1, 2011 7:16 PM

I don't know anything about what really happened, obviously, but I don't think that was performance art. I think either a) He became disillusioned with the stupidity of the "skits" they were doing (see Courtney's post today), b) He couldn't stand Anne or c) Got overwhelmed. It really does seem like people get nervous, presenters and recipients alike. Regardless, I do wish he'd found a way to ham his way through it.

Posted by: Cindy at March 1, 2011 7:24 PM

I thought Franco was fine--did people expect him to act manic and crazy and tell silly jokes? Why hire Franco, if that's what you expect?
I think part of the problem is the hype. It's built up and built up and built up and viewers expect some crazy, exciting, mind-blowing entertainment. And then it comes, we watch it and we feel like the day-after: all "that was it? That's what I was so excited about?"
But it's just an awards show. Anybody who's ever attended an awards program knows: BORING. No way to make it not. We are let down by our own expectations.
That said, am I the only one flabbergasted and pissed off that Melissa Leo took away the walking aid, the cane, of a 93-year-old stroke victim so she could play a BIT? WTF.

Posted by: Vangie at March 1, 2011 7:25 PM

I can forgive a lot of people for a lot of things but Celine Dion re-killing the dead is not one of them.

Posted by: schmerpes at March 1, 2011 7:51 PM

Hey Dustin, maybe we need a post asking the Pajiba-net's opinions on who would have been a better pairing for hosting duties...

I'd watch that.

Posted by: klingonfree at March 1, 2011 7:53 PM

If you're writing a comment, you care.

The Oscars embodies that proverbial saying of the train wreck analogy; in essence: a spectacle that by most sensibilities is mangled, yet is always something that draws attention.

The hosts are always going to draw the heavy fire, the Academy makes the decision to hire said targets, so who's really responsible for the mess? Both, so criticize Franco and Hathaway, but blame those who hired him based on, in hindsight, very unrealistic expectations. If you're going to hire a host, use someone who's already proved able to think on their feet, or accept the consequences.

BTW, was there a thread regarding the gross historical inaccuracies of the portrayal of Edward VIII? I suppose I shouldn't harp too much, since I did love Braveheart...

Posted by: JS at March 1, 2011 7:59 PM

I really just think he was stoned. But if I had to guess a reason, it was that they were mocking their own personalities. Hathaway was supposed to look like she was carrying Franco. Do you really Anne was just making up everything she did on the spot? She was the one trying to hard and James was the one who didn't care at all. Has anyone even thought about why these two actors were hired? Yes, they're younger than the average host. But they also have completely opposing energies, and always have. James Franco always comes off like he's stoned and doesn't really care about where he is; that's why he gets cast as the hot rebel. Anne Hathaway is the Disney-birthed work horse who goes from princess to drug addict to nude scene; she's basically desperately doing anything for attention. I think it was pretty good. But he was probably just stoned.

Posted by: puppetDoug at March 1, 2011 8:09 PM

Hey Dustin, maybe we need a post asking the Pajiba-net's opinions on who would have been a better pairing for hosting duties...

I'd watch that.

Posted by: klingonfree at March 1, 2011 7:53 PM

- I'm Steve Martin.
- I'm Tina Fey.
- And I'm Steve Martin.

I'd watch that.

Posted by: schmerpes at March 1, 2011 8:29 PM

Fredo >> Fair enough, and I agree. Holding an annual recognition ceremony for the films that were released five or ten years ago instead of the prior year simply isn't viable, though.

If KB_explosion speaks the truth, that's a fairly big revelation. Has any other website picked that up?

schmerpes >> I don't mind Celine Dion's performance as much as the fact that they put the camera back on her in the middle of the montage. I realize - unlike the prior two years when they pulled that - that it seems they weren't impeding recognition of any of the deceased for the television audience; they apparently just put the montage on hold for the cut. I still thought it was tacky and offensive. In Memoriam isn't about the vocal performer. It's about the deceased.

Posted by: DarthCorleone at March 1, 2011 8:32 PM

Franco phoned it in, and it sucked. Whether he phoned it in because he was nervous, or high, or doing it as performance art, or because he's just being Franco is beside the point - it wasn't entertaining. I love Franco, but it was no fun to warch. These things are rehearsed; this shouldn't happen. Of course, the real villains are the writers - can't anyone write good jokes anymore?

I like the idea of Tina Fey hosting (not least because she could write herself some decent material). Craig Fergusen. Joel McHale. My current favorite, though, is Tom Hanks - after that brilliant Toddlers & Tiaras skit, we know he can bring the manic funny if needed, and he's an Oscar institution, beloved and respected in Hollywood. (I realize that also describes Betty White; perhaps she could cohost.)

Posted by: Edith at March 1, 2011 9:25 PM

I really don't understand all the Anne love. I think Franco did what I would have done...disassociated himself from the crazy person! During his green room interview on ABC's awkward pre-show coverage, he said that Anne "has a lot of energy." I think he saw the writing on the wall. And I agree with I can sing...pick a gown. And don't Woo. Or high ten. It's the Oscars...show a little decorum.

Posted by: emmasaunt at March 1, 2011 9:28 PM

(I realize that also describes Betty White; perhaps she could cohost.)

Posted by: Edith at March 1, 2011 9:25 PM

Edith, if they decide to do that, they will have to keep Celine Dion steady for an encore.

Posted by: schmerpes at March 1, 2011 9:42 PM

Oh whatever, he was stoned. Takes one to know one.

Posted by: jp at March 1, 2011 9:58 PM

If you're writing a comment, you care.

Posted by: JS at March 1, 2011 7:59 PM
---
Um, no.

Posted by: , at March 1, 2011 11:30 PM

my impression was that if he was hired to host, whether it be the oscars or my office party, I'd say he was a pretty crappy one. I expect more out of hosts. If he behaved that way at my company function, I wouldn't hire him again. I'd hire Anne, on her own, and tell her to relax and have fun and let her at it. So.
To be fair though, poor writing and production choices didn't help either. The Academy really is gutless there.
And if that last minute cancellation of Franco's plans story is true, i'd tell him, next time get it in writing, and get that done before you even agree. Or maybe he did. I'd certainly love to know more about that particular side of things.
My vote is for Craig Ferguson. That man knows how to host, is super funny, engaging, knows how to tell a story, jokes, has a sense of humour, entertains. I mean my God, I totally want to see him bring the puppets out ... have the shark serenade an actress or somethgn wacky. The Oscars would be a better show if it was wacky, as opposed to hip or classy. As someone said, awards shows are inherently boring. A bit of wackiness livenes it up.
Witness the Sheen debacle.

Posted by: carole at March 1, 2011 11:32 PM

that said, know what you're hiring.
and maybe the academy was fine with franco's performance (and if that's his thing, I guess I'm not a fan, cos...meh). who knows. i'm sure they love all this talk about the show, good or bad.

Posted by: carol at March 2, 2011 12:15 AM

He could've came out on stage and just sat there for all I care and I'd still love him. I don't care about the Oscar's. I don't even pretend to care about the Oscars, like so many other people out there. I do, however, LOVE James Franco. I almost wish I would've watched to see him do his thing, or not do it, whatever.
Posted by: Sarah at March 1, 2011 4:43 PM

This.

The only good thing that was brought about by the Oscars was my once-unrealized love for James Franco. I've been following his career loosely since Freaks & Geeks, and had a great time with his So Good meme from Spiderman 3, but there was nothing really going on there. Then the Oscars came around, I found his Facebook page, and I was just hooked on the cute videos he'd post leading up to the big night.

Other than that, the Oscars started phoning it in years ago. Yeah, whooo, King's Speech, but it was choice pickings out of what really? I think seeing Salt being nominated in the Sound Mixing category was what ate my ass the most. For fuck's sake. Salt.

Posted by: duckandcover at March 2, 2011 12:41 AM

Didn't watch the Academy Awardz. but I usually love Mr. James Franco -I don't care about his acting, but he's great at being a subject to fantasize about- Anyway, maybe he was just trying to "play cool" to cover the fact that he was very nervous about hosting the show? Who cares. but It's so not his fault anyway. The guy was just being himself. If anyone is to be blame for the mess, it's the people that picked him to host the ceremony. You don't need to be terribly bright to see that he's no Jack Nicholson. Did someone confuse the Oscars with the Mtv Movie Awards?

meh, James Dean would have done the same thing. just sayin'

Posted by: titi's at March 2, 2011 7:22 AM

Thank God. I was beginning to feel a little crazy, like I was the only one who thought James Franco did just fine at the Oscars. And I'm not talking about this post-I mean the comments. The post does him no justice.
Honestly, I would have preferred to see a little more of him, and a little less Ann. I don't know what everyone was expecting him to do so differently...I found him wry, funny, and charming...and he did exactly the job he was hired to do.
I'll echo some of the sentiments above-you don't hire James Franco if you're expecting a Billy Crystal performance.
Team Franco.

Posted by: Whorish Mouth at March 2, 2011 8:27 AM

Team Franco!

I didn't watch the Oscars (I read Courtney's live blog Monday morning instead, it contained all I needed to know) but now I wish I had to just to see James Franco not give a fuck.

Posted by: staceygarrett at March 2, 2011 10:58 AM

You know who would KILL as an Oscar host? (bear with me, think about it before you reject the offer)

Michael Buble.

Posted by: bokchoi at March 2, 2011 1:01 PM

I agree with Todd - I don't care about the Oscars at all. I'm not in the industry; I don't know anyone in the industry. I care about good movies, and movies I like, and whether they won awards or not is completely irrelevant to me.

I mean, I don't look at a Vermeer and wonder "Was that the Best Painting of the Year?".

Posted by: Pat C. at March 2, 2011 5:44 PM

Is it that James Franco was that bad, or that he was simply a "regular guy" amidst a sea of glammed-up, self-congratulatory rich folk? His undersell didn't irk me as much as Hathaway's oversell. Everything she did wreaked of high school drama club overacting; an "Oh, gosh! This is a dream come true" disingenousness that was 1,000 times more frustrating than anything Franco did.

Posted by: Pasqua at March 2, 2011 10:29 PM

his people came into my work and bought a bunch of super8 film that they were going to use to film behind the scenes the whole night. franco was looking forward to creating something of his OWN, and thought a really cool way to do it would be to have a very real, unpolished account of what it was like to host the oscars and what the madness looked like backstage. very on par with franco's latests artisitc endeavors, no? unfortunately, before the telecast, the academy changed their minds and refused to let him and his people do any filming behind the scenes. hence, the complete lack of investment in his hosting duties.

i do have this to say though, while he may have 'stuck it' to the academy by giving such a terrible go of it (and the ratings reflected this), it doesn't say much for his acting capabilities. he should have at least bucked up for anne, she was looking damn near crazy on stage trying to make up for his lack of enthusiasm.

Posted by: Bleach cosplay costumes at March 3, 2011 9:58 PM