A Thumbs Up for This Oscar-Night Performance

Howard Rosenberg disapproves of me in his column (“The Eberts: The New Awards for Fawning,” Calendar, March 23) for co-hosting KABC’s pre-Oscar interview show--and, worse, for adopting a “fawning,” “avuncular” tone toward the nominees and other stars. Such is not an appropriate role, he finds, for a film critic.

Rosenberg is an excellent reporter and has accurately described my performance. I have no disagreement, except when he writes that I am short. I am fully 5 feet, 9 1/2 inches tall. He leaves me with two questions to be answered: (1) Was my behavior appropriate? and (2) Was it appropriate for a film critic?

The format of such broadcasts is, as Rosenberg knows, well-established. The movie stars parade down the red carpet toward the Pavilion. They are accosted by hundreds of television, radio and print journalists and photographers from all over the world, who engage in a feeding frenzy. The tone is set by Army Archerd’s loudspeaker interviews for the fans in the bleachers.

*

In 26 years on the movie beat, I have seen uncounted red-carpet encounters. Without exception, they consist of rapid-fire exchanges of inanities, cliches and unfinished thoughts. What the interviewer hopes is to be slightly less inane and more thoughtful than the situation requires. This is not easy. The typical interview consists of 10 to 45 seconds of shouting.

The Academy Awards are a party and a celebration--not an appropriate place for the sorts of probing, lacerating questions Rosenberg did not hear me asking (“Miss Hunter, would you agree with me that your nomination for ‘The Firm’ was the academy’s worst single nomination this year?”). Just as one does not make rude remarks at a wedding, one adopts a lighthearted spirit on Oscar day. Much depends on tone. When I asked Nancy Kerrigan, “Do you think you might want to move in the direction of acting rather than skating?” Rosenberg apparently thought I was being perfectly serious. This does not say much for his sense of humor.

Oh, I was certainly avuncular. But fawning? This is a pejorative word depending upon whose ox is being gored. In my opinion, my performance was uncannily appropriate for the occasion.

But should a film critic engage in such public behavior? Or should he stay aloof from the melee? The ridiculous, goofy, silly side of the Oscars has always appealed to me, and when KABC asked me to co-host the pre-Oscar broadcast, I was tickled. (Money, believe me, did not play a role in my decision.)

*

It was my chance to participate in a Hollywood ritual. I did not, it is true, lacerate the arriving guests with my scorn for their failures, or my doubts about the wisdom of their nomination. But neither did I lie. And I had a jolly good time.

Big, rich papers like the Los Angeles Times separate their critics from those who write interviews and profiles. Rosenberg need never actually meet those he writes about. He can consider them as abstractions. I not only review movies, but I also do interviews, visit locations and attend festivals (paying my own way, of course--not accepting junkets). I never have any difficulty in telling the truth about a movie, even if I’ve interviewed one of its participants.

Writing a truthful review is what a critic does. But I am not only a film critic. I am also an interviewer, a raconteur, a friend, a fan, a gossip, a teller of jokes, a teacher of classes, a writer of books, a sketcher of pictures, a host of pre-Oscar telecasts. I am even on line. I am large, Mr. Rosenberg. I contain multitudes.