WHO WILL SAVE OSCAR?

The motion picture academy announced the Oscar nominations last week, which is a depressingly certain sign that there will be an Academy Awards show this year.

I'm no fan of the Oscars (or any awards show for that matter). Any sane person who has worked at an East Coast paper on Oscar Night has probably wound up screaming, "Make it stop!" at some point. The show celebrates fabulous, highly paid stars who don't know when to shut up (apparently, the obligations of gratitude are pretty steep in Hollywood) while drab, underpaid journalists who don't know how to get a better job are watching their deadlines shatter with each giddy acceptance speech.

Inevitably, some actor will try to ennoble his award by attaching it to some cause or grievance. "Like the character I portrayed -- a blind, gay, black stock car racer -- many people in this country are struggling to be accepted for who they are. I hope this award shows them that there is hope for that acceptance." Such moments are a lot like getting a PopTart with socialist rhetoric inscribed on it.

The greatest sin of the Academy Awards show, however, is not the bloviating but the tedium. The show is flat-out boring. It's as predictable as a Soviet May Day parade and as entertaining as a third-grade Spring Sing. There is no reason an industry that has created such riveting entertainment as "The Godfather" and "Chopper Chicks in Zombie Town" should serve up such fare on its signature night.

But there is a way toward a better show. All it takes is a rule change or two and a little cosmetics.

The process of handing out the awards should definitely be changed. The current process allows too much room for water-cooler cinema buffs to trap their co-workers in "Well, the Oscar SHOULD have gone to ..." discussions. So there should be a system that allows challenges.

Here's how it would work: Actors who win an Academy Award still get to bound up on stage and make their acceptance speeches, but they must end the speech by saying something like. "And so I claim this prize, by right and by favor of the Academy. If one of my rivals disputes my claim, let him (or her) come forward to do battle and so let blood settle the matter." The challenger who decides to come forth would then have three minutes to wrest the statuette away from the holder and then beat him until he is incontinent. Only one challenge will be allowed, and a challenger who loses will have to forgo working in movies for a year and instead do commercials for personal hygiene or sexual dysfunction products.

Showing clips from the Best Picture nominees should be changed, as well. Most people have already seen the movies, so this part of the show adds little. But in this era of computer enhancement and all the marvels therein, it's not that much of a stretch to see how the Best Pictures could be even better. For instance, "Citizen Kane" is widely considered the Best Movie of All Time. But there is no question that it could have been better if it had included the dancing gopher from "Caddyshack." Similarly, "Brokeback Mountain" appears to be the likely Best Picture for 2005. But instead of starring Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger, wouldn't it have been better if it had starred Heath Ledger and Groucho Marx? So I say that the clips should be altered to show what the movies could have been, instead of what they are.

Acceptance speeches have got to be reined in. The affirmation of getting an Academy Award often proves to much for some actors, and they begin raving so incoherently that it's difficult to tell whether they are elated or in the grip of LSD. Worse, they believe that we actually care what the award means to them and want to listen to 10 minutes or so of shared feelings. There must be a penalty for such excess. So I propose that any acceptance speech longer than three minutes becomes fair game for a special section of hecklers. And not just any hecklers -- the best. That's right people -- Eagles and Jets fans.

Finally, there should be some sort of analysis done of each award, sort of like what ESPN does with on Draft Day. Each award will be scrutinized in the way that Chris Berman, Mel Kiper Jr., Tom Jackson, et. al. go over each draft pick, and a thumbs-up or a thumbs-down will be given. That way we will learn whether Philip Seymour Hoffman or Joaquin Phoenix deserves the Best Actor award. And whether Hilary Swank would be the Falcons' answer at strong safety.

Of course, theses suggestions are not likely to see the light of day, but Hollywood might do well to heed them. Playing it safe and serving up the usual pablum on Oscar Night is not necessarily a crime, but it is dull. And when hoi polloi are no longer dazzled, revolution thrives. So the Academy Award show can either drop musical numbers in favor of the best kill scenes in splatter flicks, or it stick to the tried and true and tempt the real thing: actors being hauled off to the guillotine.

Either way, I'll be entertained.