Interview - Josh Gad on a Reimagined 'Beauty and the Beast'
- Written by Matthew Toomey
He’s appeared in films such as Pixels, The Wedding Ringer and Jobs and voiced characters in films including Frozen, The Angry Birds Movie and A Dog’s Purpose. I recently had the chance to speak with Josh Gad about his role in the live action remake of Beauty and the Beast.
Matt: What was your first reaction when you heard about a live action remake of Beauty and the Beast?
Josh: My first reaction was “oh God, it better be good”. That movie, as I’m sure it is with many others, was a pivotal part of my childhood journey. I was 10 years old when I first saw the movie in a theatre in South Florida and it left an indelible impression, specifically the songs which are now iconic. Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid and Aladdin became the soundtrack to my childhood. Being able to bring those songs to life, given that they were so influential on me, was a thrill.
Matt: How do the singing numbers work? How much time is spent on rehearsal and getting your voice down pat and in sync?
Josh: We rehearsed the choreography for 5 weeks and recorded the song over 2 days. The problem was that Luke Evans and I both come from musical theatre and we’re perfectionists when it comes to singing. You can record something but to do it out of context and not match the physicality of what you’re doing doesn’t necessarily lend itself to the greatest results and so we insisted on singing it live and not lip syncing. A lot of the flourishes in the song were actually moments that we recorded on the day of shooting.
Matt: So it wasn’t all done in a studio? It was done like Tom Hooper’s Les Misérables?
Josh: It was both. Some moments were in a studio but others, like when we’re dancing, were done as part of the shoot as it brings a different quality and energy to the vocals.
Matt: How easy was it shooting the scenes themselves when you’re dancing and jumping all over the place whilst trying to sing at the same time?
Josh: It’s not an easy process but it’s a process I’m comfortable with because so much of the work I’ve been blessed enough to do has been musical orientated like Frozen or Book of Mormon. I come from that background and my first big break was on Broadway doing a musical called Spelling Bee and so I sort of love it. I’m grateful for the opportunity to finally bring those skills to the big screen because they are few and far between.
Matt: So how did Bill Condon find you for this project?
Josh: Bill and I actually worked together years ago on the pilot for HBO called Tilda with Diane Keaton that sadly never saw the light of day. We both really loved working with each other. He called me about Beauty and the Beast and I was like “yes, sign me up”.
In the original movie, so much of the comedy from the LeFou character comes from cartoon conceits. He’s so physical and he’s the butt of every joke like where he’s getting his teeth knocked out, he’s getting thrown across the room multiple times by Gaston, and animals sit on his head. That’s not something that I thought would be really great to play in a live action version.
So for me, it was about giving him a humanity. If LeFou was as dumb as a box in the original movie, what if we made him dumb as a fox? That means that he’s not quite as dull and a fool as people would imagine. He’s actually got a conscience and he calls into question this blind faith he has in Gaston along the way. That added a really interesting dynamic to the whole enterprise.
Matt: What stands out for me watching this film are the visuals – the castle and the surrounds are incredible. Since it’s almost impossible to discern the difference these days, how much of what we see is real and what is not?
Josh: It was all practical when it came to the sets. When I tell you that Disney spared no expense on creating this environment, it’s true. Bill felt that it was important, especially in a film that requires so much digital trickery, to put the characters in an environment that was real and tangible because you want to ground the other elements.
Matt: The costumes in the film area really great and you’re working alongside Oscar-nominated costumer Jacqueline Durran (Anna Karenina). Do you have a lot of fun with that part of the process?
Josh: It was so, so, so brilliant working with every single department on a film like this because they all bring their A-game. The costumes are gorgeous but so are the sets and the hair & make up. You just feel like you’re doing this grand, incredible, epic film that is a homage to something you grew up with. To bring it to life with an all-star crew, you pinch yourself every day coming to work.
Matt: The film has an amazing cast and a lot of them you wouldn’t have had a chance to work with before. Who surprised you? Was there someone you got along really well with?
Josh: You can’t be surprised at the level of that cast. Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Ewan McGregor, Stanley Tucci… these have been idols of mine growing up. What I was surprised by was working alongside Emma, Dan and Luke was how well-rounded all of them are when it coming to the singing, dancing and other elements that they aren’t necessarily known for. That to me was a great joy to collaborate with them on.
Matt: What’s it like seeing the finished product? Are you amazed sometimes by how it all comes together on screen?
Josh: Sometimes? Try every minute. It’s stunning and amazing. For instance, Dan Stevens was wearing a onesie with his face sprayed with thousands of dots for motion capture and then all of a sudden you see this living, breathing beast on screen and your jaw is on the floor. The audience are saying “how did they do this?” I was there and I still don’t know how they did it!
Matt: What are you working at the moment? When are we going to see you next?
Josh: I just wrapped production two weeks ago on Murder on the Orient Express which is directed by the amazing Kenneth Branagh. That’ll be out at the end of the year and it has an incredible cast including Johnny Depp, Dame Judi Dench, Daisy Ridley, Willem Dafoe, the list goes on and on. It was such a thrill and I feel the movie will have a David Lean quality to it where it feels like a breath of fresh air. It’s a different type of film to what audiences usually get. It’s a murder-mystery set in the 1930s. I then have a smaller film coming out with Chadwick Boseman and Dan Stevens again which his directed by Reginald Hudlin called Marshall. That should be out in October.
Interview - David Stratton On His Life & Australian Cinema
- Written by Matthew Toomey
He’s been reviewing movies since before I was born and so it was a privilege to sit down with legendary Australian film critic David Stratton and talk about his life’s work and Aussie cinema as part of the release of David Stratton: A Cinematic Life.
Matt: I have to ask since it’s going to be talked about for a long time to come – did you see the debacle to end this year’s Academy Awards?
David: I didn’t because I was on a flight from Perth to Brisbane. I saw a glimpse of the disaster on the news. I felt sorry for Warren Beatty because he looked like he wasn’t sure what’s going on. It was obviously a big stuff up.
Matt: Are you a big fan of awards shows? Do you watch them?
David: I do watch them. I always watch the Oscars and this was the first time that I’d missed them in a long time.
Matt: You’ve spent so much time interviewing actors and filmmakers. What’s it been like on the other side of the fence as you’ve been doing publicity for this film?
David: Exhausting. No, it’s been stimulating because it shows people are interested in what we’ve done with this documentary.
Matt: When were you first approached about it? Did you think your life would ever be put up on the screen like this in such a way?
David: No. The original idea was not my life but rather my reflections on Australian films. We didn’t want to tell a history of Australian cinema. We wanted to originally make a 3-part documentary for the ABC which would reflect and comment on some of the most important Australian films. That changed, as these things do, and it’s ended up becoming a cinema film with a different title. There will still be an ABC series later in the year.
Matt: One of the things I like about the film is that it celebrates Australian cinema as much as it celebrates your life and work. Was that always your intention from outset?
David: That’s the director, Sally Aitken. She deserves full credit for that and I didn’t even know what she had in mind. She did it very cleverly and skilfully. It was only when I saw the film for the first time that I realised how she had extrapolated links in my life and some of the Australian films I’m so fond of. I don’t think that element will be in the TV series so the two are going to be rather different.
Matt: Having been part of the Australian film landscape for so long, is it harder to be critical of Australian films given you know so many of the people who worked on them individually?
David: It is hard. You don’t want to hurt the feelings of people you admire but we can’t always make a good film. I’ve given negative reviews to people I’m quite friendly with and I think that upset them initially but it was all right later on except for Geoffrey Wright which is referenced in the film.
A good example is the late Paul Cox. I was a good friend and I love most of his films. I didn’t like one of his later films and so I phoned up to warn him before we went to air that night with At The Movies. He said “that’s all right, you have to call it the way you see it.” The morning after he called and said “you really didn’t like it!” but we remained friends of course.
Matt: I have to talk about your run on The Movie Show with Margaret Pomeranz. I assume you both saw films together but did you talk about your views before going on air?
David: We didn’t always see them together. Sometimes we saw them separately. It depended on the circumstances but we never talked about them before going to air. I think that was one of the reasons the show worked. We were often surprised by each other’s reaction.
Matt: You’ve had the chance to travel the world and attend numerous film festivals. Which ones stand out? Which festivals should I be putting on my bucket list?
David: Venice. It’s the only one I’m still going to regularly and I’ve be going since 1966. It’s a great festival. Maybe the films are better in Cannes and the organisation is better in Berlin but Venice is Venice.
Matt: I was astounded in the film to hear that you average seeing about a film every day on average. Do you have holidays? Can you detox and not watch anything for a couple of weeks?
David: On this tour, I haven’t managed to see a film every day but I wouldn’t exactly call it a holiday (laughs).
Matt: Do you ever get star struck with any actors and filmmakers that you’ve had the chance to interview?
David: Not really. They’re ordinary people. Some are very relaxed and easy to get on with. Some are more self-important. The Australians in particular are very easy to get along with.
Matt: What do you think of the state of film criticism at the moment? There are fewer paid, published critics but a lot more people putting opinions out there though blogs and social media.
David: I think that’s the way of the future. There are fewer people getting paid to review films. There was a time when The Courier Mail had its own Brisbane based critic (Des Partridge) and now they take reviews from Melbourne. That’s the trend throughout the country. Filling that gap are people blogging with their ideas and while they may not be always informed ideas, they’re ideas those individuals want to express and I think that’s a great thing.
Matt: You clearly spend a lot of time focusing on film. I’ve always been curious whether you branch out and have much time for TV or live theatre?
David: Not as much live theatre as I’d like to. It’s always a question of time. I live in the Blue Mountains and it’s always a hike to get into the city and back again. That limits evenings at the theatre. I only watch political things on television. Insiders on a Sunday morning I wouldn’t miss for anything. Q&A is riveting television and Media Watch as well… that’s the television I enjoy.
Matt: There are some big names in the film that we see speaking very highly of you on camera – the likes of Nicole Kidman and George Miller. What was it like seeing it for the first time?
David: It was very touching. I met Nicole for the first time when she was about 15 years old and making her first film. I remember going on a junket for a film that her boyfriend at the time was starring in. He was doing all the interviews and she wasn’t in the film so she was just hanging about. We had a long conversation about the history of movies to fill in the time. Since that time we’ve been friends. George once told me off camera that he thought if I hadn’t shown his first short film at the Sydney Film Festival in 1971 that he might still be a doctor.
Matt: I’ll finish up by asking – do you think about legacy and what will happen to all your reviews and other collectables when you’re gone? The great Roger Ebert passed away several years ago but so many of his reviews can be found online and there’s also a review website named in his honour.
David: No, I haven’t but I should. I have no idea.
Interview - Rachel Perkins & Craig Silvey Discuss 'Jasper Jones'
- Written by Matthew Toomey
Australian cinema has been going “great guns” over the past few months with the success of Hacksaw Ridge and Lion. Jasper Jones is the next cab off the rank and it’s a terrific film that skilfully mixes genres and features some wonderful performances. I sat down with author-screenwriter Craig Silvey and director Rachel Perkins (Bran Nue Dae) to talk about the film. You can listen to the full interview by clicking here.
Matt: I was talking on my radio spot last week about film adaptations and we had a debate as to whether it’s best to read the book first or to see the movie first. I don’t think I’ll be in a better position to ask that question given I’ve got the author of the book and the director of the movie. In general, what are your thoughts on it?
Rachel: Tough one. I think the nation is divided on that issue. I’ve been talking to people at the screenings because we’ve been taking it around the country. Some have seen the film and then bought the book. There’s something good about that because what awaits them is all these other riches in the book whereas if you’ve read the book first, you’re doing more of a comparison and thinking about what’s been left out.
Craig: I think that’s a good point. They’re two different processes I suppose. A lot of people who are coming to see the film have read the book and loved the book. They’re happy to celebrate it and see it in a different way on screen. With the film now out, people will go the other way. They’re looking for extra content and something else they can explore because they want to spend more time with these characters.
Matt: Craig, not all authors get a chance to adapt their own novels for the screen. You got the chance to do it here for the first time. Can you tell me about the experience?
Craig: It was a huge challenge. I was brought it to write a fresh draft before we went into production and so I didn’t have a lot of time. I only had about 6 weeks and it was my first screenplay. I was thrown right in the deep end but I adored the opportunity. It was difficult work but I think we had a terrific collaborative team around us. Rachel was a great help and had a really strong vision for the film.
Matt: Do you ever have a thought that it might one day become a movie?
Craig: When you’re developing a novel, you want to avoid thinking about all those things that are out of your control like reception, publication, criticism and adaptation. You’re just trying to put one foot in front of the other and develop the work as honestly as possible. From time to time it occurred to me that this structure may lend itself well to an adaptation but back then I was less interested in film and seeing my stories told using film. These days, it’s all changed. At the inception of an idea, I think to myself “What is this? Is it a novel? Is it for the stage? Is it a film? Is it television?” I run it through a filter of structures before decide where to go with it.
Matt: Rachel, can I ask how you became involved with this project and came across Craig’s novel?
Rachel: Like the other half-a-million people who have read this book, I came by it after someone recommended it to me. It’s often the way it happens – through word of mouth. I picked it up and then couldn’t put it down. I felt it was a book that I could adapt or direct for the screen. I procrastinated for a while and then went to the publishers and by then the rights had gone. I was devastated and assumed that someone really famous and talented would make it who I could hate for the rest of my life (laughs).
A few years later, I heard that a friend of mine had the rights so I rang up and asked if I could be put on the list of possible directors. He agreed and I think he helped push for me to do it with the other producers. I wore them all down with my enthusiasm I think and it was nice for the project to come back to me in a way.
Matt: If we get into the filmmaking process itself. Craig, as the screenwriter, you put a script out there but does it stay that way during the shooting process? Or are there a lot of changes you make along the way when you see the actors and how they interact?
Craig: Film seems to be all about adjustments. You don’t know what’s going to come up in a day and you don’t know what’s going to work in rehearsals. You don’t know if your dialogue is going to “sing” on a day or whether it’ll be problematic. You’ve got to be agile and there were a raft of re-writes. There were also ideas we’d have on set and also some concerns which we’d try to solve on the fly.
Matt: Rachel, let’s talk about the cast. I know a lot of people in Brisbane might be interested to hear about Levi Miller who was born here and went to Holland Park State School. He’s already got a couple of big movies under his belt. He comes across so well in the film – Charlie is this very awkward, uncomfortable kid. What can you tell us about him?
Rachel: Yep, he’s Brisbane born and bred. All he wants to do is act and so far he’s realising that dream. His mum looks after him and brings him to set. They’ve got this really good family unit and they’ve worked out how he can do school and acting together. He’s on an incredibly trajectory. He was selected out of thousands of kids to do Pan and then he did Red Dog: True Blue. By the time he came to us, he had more experience than I had. He’s also the face of young people’s attire for Ralph Lauren. He’s so grateful for the work and so grateful he can act. He’s down-to-earth and very talented I think.
Matt: It’s funny because he was with Hugh Jackman in Pan and now the two of them are going head-to-head at the box-office this week in Australia because we’ve got Logan versus Jasper Jones.
Rachel: Yeah… and who will win? I’m asking all Australian listeners out there to please go and see our film instead of Logan. I’m just going to say that straight out (laughs). I don’t want to beat around the bush. It’s just a clear request to the people of Australia.
Matt: There are some great actors in this film like Hugo Weaving, Toni Collette, Dan Wyllie and Angourie Rice. How easy was it pulling them all together?
Rachel: It was frighteningly easy. I thought it would be much harder. We had a great time making this film. Whoever we wanted for the cast said “yes”. Toni Collette tried to adapt the novel early on herself. When she heard about the film, she rearranged her U.S. schedule and came over. Hugo Weaving immediately agreed too. Kevin Long, who plays Jeffrey Lu, we found in a kung-fu class in western Sydney. He’d never acted before but is like a child genius.
Matt: Can Kevin play cricket?
Craig: He can now. I fell in love with the kid when I first met him. He’s such a sweetheart and he really is that character. There’s a pivotal cricket scene in the film so he had to really know his stuff. Kevin didn’t know much about cricket at all so I took him under my wing as a fan of the game. I spent every spare hour down at the nets in Pemberton and taking Kevin through his paces and teaching him how to hit a cover drive. I was like a proud dad during the two days that we shot those scenes.
Matt: Rachel, there are a lot of different tones in the film. There’s comedy and romance but there are also much darker themes which I won’t spoil for those who haven’t seen it. How do you balance that up when making the film and putting it all together in the editing room?
Rachel: It’s a good question. A murder-mystery usually has a tension and dark edge that runs all the way through the movie. This work was very different. The novel is loved by so many because it has a mixture of elements. It has a murder-mystery that opens the work and that drags you through because you want to know how it ends. Between these young characters though, there’s the humour and the romance and it’s all wrapped up in this coming-of-age tale about a young guy growing up in this town and realising things aren’t the way he’s been led to believe. It’s a beautiful combination of different genres which is why I was attracted and why audiences are responding to it.
Matt: Craig, I was fortunate enough to host a Q&A with you on Tuesday night and it was remarkable how many people in the crowd had read the book. There were even school teachers saying how they’ve been teaching it to their kids for years. What’s this publicity tour been like and interacting with these people who collectively have all read the book at various stages over the last 8 years?
Craig: It’s been overwhelming and moving for both of us. There’s a passion for this story and a lot of goodwill around it. The support for this book is now culminating with a rapturous love for the film. It’s impossible not to be inspired and moved by that. These people have come out in such generous spirit to see our film and to see this story in a different way. It’s been one of the most rewarding experiences of my life.
Matt: I’ll finish up by asking what you guys have got in the works?
Craig: I’m working on a western set in the gold fields of Western Australia in the late 19th century and it’s called The Prospector.
Matt: And you guys will collaborate on that again?
Rachel: I think we’re going to go through it again together. It’s so far, so good.
Matt: I’m excited about that already but in the meantime, we can all go out and watch Jasper Jones smash it at the box-office.
Rachel: Let’s hope so. The preview screenings we’ve had so far have been incredible. We’ve had 200 people coming up to Craig after the screenings to sign copies of the book. The screenings with the Q&As were sold out weeks in advance. I hope the passion continues and I hope we live up to people’s expectations who love the book so much.
Oscars 2017: They'll Never Let Us Show That Again! Not In A Million Years!
- Written by Matthew Toomey
I’ve been covering the Oscars since 1995 and that’s the strangest end to an Oscars ceremony that we’re ever likely to see. They’ll be telling the story for long after I’ve left this planet. The accounting firm of PwC gave an incorrect envelope to presenters Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway. Instead of the best picture envelope, they were given a duplicate of the best actress envelope (awarded just a few minutes earlier). Beatty was clearly confused to see Emma Stone’s name listed, he handed the envelope to Dunaway, and she simply read “La La Land”. It wasn’t until a minute or so had passed before the correction was made – Moonlight had actually won best picture.
Everyone seems to be taking it in their stride. Backstage, Emma Stone professed that she “f***ing loved Moonlight” and didn’t seem too perturbed by the defeat. The same applies to La La Land’s producer Jordan Horowitz who was quick to make the correction on stage and get the Moonlight producers up to accept.
That said, it was a disappointing end to what should have been one of the Academy’s great moments. The La La Land producers had the Oscar statues in the hands and were making a passionate speech. To be embarrassed like that is terrible. It would have been even worse if it had occurred in an acting category. While they get win, you have to feel sympathy for Moonlight. They didn’t get the chance to hear their names read out and it’s likely that the win will be remembered more for the mistake than the film itself. I feel like channelling Donald Trump and putting “SAD!” in a tweet.
When the dust settles, those behind Moonlight will hopefully enjoy the success. Despite all the critical praise, their tiny film has made the least amount of money at the box-office when compared to the other 8 best nominees. To have beaten them all, particularly after La La Land won the Producer’s Guild Award, is one of the great all time Oscars upsets. It’s on a par with the wins by Crash and Shakespeare in Love. The film is amazing too and I’m sure more people will see it as a result.
It’s hard to talk about much else in regards to the ceremony because it all feels insignificant in comparison. Jimmy Kimmel took a relatively safe path as the host. He wasn’t the best but he was far from being the worst. The highlight of the night for me was the win of American Kevin O’Connell in the best sound mixing category. After 20 previous nominations without a win, stretching back to 1983’s Terms of Endearment, he broke the longest losing streak in Oscars history with his best sound mixing win for Hacksaw Ridge. He shared the win with three Australians who were our only winners on the night.
There were plenty of nice speeches include those of Mahershala Ali and Viola Davis who won as expected in the supporting categories. There was a political flavour to the night with fun poked at Donald Trump but also a deeper undertone about embracing difference and celebrating inclusion.
For those who haven’t seen a list of winners, the big ones were:
Best picture – Moonlight
Best director – Damien Chazelle (La La Land)
Best actor – Casey Affleck (Manchester by the Sea)
Best actress – Emma Stone (La La Land)
Best supporting actor – Mahershala Ali (Moonlight)
Best supporting actress – Viola Davis (Fences)
Best original screenplay – Manchester by the Sea
Best adapted screenplay – Moonlight
Best foreign language film – The Salesman
Best animated film – Zootopia
It was another successful year for me in terms of Oscars betting. I got some great odds early in the season on Damien Chazelle, Casey Affleck, Emma Stone and Mahershala Ali and they all managed to get the win. I finished with a profit of $870 which will do just nicely. I am grateful to have not backed La La Land for best picture (I did think it would win) as that would have been awkward given the way it unfolded.
To help keep a record of all my Oscar bets, here’s the full list for the archives…
1996 – profit of $750 – won on Susan Sarandon
1997 – profit of $300 (cumulative profit $1,050) – won on Frances McDormand
1998 – loss of $250 (cumulative profit $800)
1999 – loss of $250 (cumulative profit $550)
2000 – profit of $620 (cumulative profit $1,170) – won on Kevin Spacey and Michael Caine
2001 – loss of $190 (cumulative profit $980) – won on director Steven Soderbergh
2002 – profit of $480 (cumulative profit $1,460) – won on Halle Berry
2003 – profit of $275 (cumulative profit $1,735) – won on Catherine Zeta-Jones and Adrian Brody
2004 – profit of $150 (cumulative profit $1,875) – won on Sean Penn
2005 – profit of $214 (cumulative profit $2,089) – won on Hilary Swank
2006 – profit of $350 (cumulative profit $2,439) – won on Reese Witherspoon
2007 – profit of $1,463 (cumulative profit $3,912) – won on Eddie Murphy at Globes, Alan Arkin & West Bank Story at Oscars
2008 – profit of $268 (cumulative profit of $4,280) – won on Tilda Swinton and the Coen brothers
2009 – profit of $253 (cumulative profit of $4,533) – won on Mickey Rourke & Kate Winslet at Globes, Kate Winslet at Oscars
2010 – loss of $830 (cumulative profit of $3,703)
2011 – profit of $30 (cumulative profit of $3,733) – won on Social Network at Globes, Tom Hooper & King’s Speech at Oscars
2012 – loss of $640 (cumulative profit of $3,093) – won on Jean Dujardin at Oscars
2013 – loss of $850 (cumulative profit of $2,243) – won on Ang Lee at Oscars
2014 – loss of $72 (cumulative profit of $2,171) – won on Matthew McConaughey at Globes and Oscars
2015 – loss of $50 (cumulative profit of $2,121) – won on Eddie Redmayne at Oscars
2016 – win of $1,325 (cumulative profit of $3,446) – won on Mark Rylance and Spotlight at Oscars
2017 – win of $870 (cumulative profit of $4,316) – won on Damien Chazelle, Casey Affleck, Emma Stone and Mahershala Ali at Oscars
I set a tough test for this year’s Oscars competition with plenty of upsets across the board – particularly in the technical categories. It could have been even harder if I’d have included categories like costume design and make up (who were won by rank outsiders).
In the end, 4 out of 6 was the best score this year. I’ve been running the competition for 17 years and I feel a little guilty in saying that I had the best score this year. All my picks were published in my e-newsletter last week so don’t think I’m trying to cheat! I missed best picture and best sound editing (the two hardest categories to get) and was spot on with the age of the 2 best picture presenters (which had been leaked for those paying attention in the days leading up to the Oscars).
I’m not giving myself the prize though and so the winner this year is Elenaor Morse who missed the same two categories as me and was closest with her pick of the age of the best picture presenters – Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway (who will forever be known for the wrong reasons) are 79 and 76 respectively. Elenaor went with an average age of 71. Other competition entrants with 4 out of 6 were Peter Gray, Shaun Heenan, Robb Musgrave, Lisa Malouf, El Hamraoui Talal, Stephanie Sim, Reed Hilton, Alex Thomas and Nick Dagan. There were plenty more on 3 out of 6. I’ll soon be in touch with Eleanor about her prize.
In closing, I reflect on one of my favourite Simpsons line. Krusty the Clown shows a cartoon where Scratchy finally kills Itchy and proclaims – “They’ll never let us show that again! Not in a million years!” Those behind the scenes at the Academy will feel the same way tonight.