Yes, but again, he should have realized immediately when Faye Dunaway said “La La Land” that a huge mistake had been made and not a minute or two later, think, “Hmm, that doesn’t sound right.” Not to mention that the other accountant didn’t notice or react either.
Especially since virtually everyone in the universe assumed La La Land was going to win so he was one of only two people anywhere who knew what a huge surprise the real winner was going to be.
I mean, if they blew it pretty bad on Documentary Short, well, they’re only human. But “I think they got this wrong” on BEST PICTURE suggests these two weren’t trying super hard to remember the winners, either.
An interesting article about how the Oscars mix-up is typical of the way that a string of small errors can cause large accidents:
That was a good analysis. My lesson in this vein comes from the 1977 Tenerife air disaster. (Incidentally, it’s also how I recall the evolution of Wikipedia). The early version of its Wikipedia article – say, from 2005 or whatever – was rather simplistic. Later versions described in more detail the SERIES of mistakes and unfortunate occurrences that, together, led to the disaster. Also, as with the Oscars debacle, a few of these errors were examples of human nature (e.g., letting down one’s guard after about a decade of doing a job).
Yes, a good analysis.
wolfpup have you read this? Thoughts?
In addition to having a protocol worked out and rehearsed for a mistake on-stage (plus accountants who understand that their job is to get the awards done properly, not tweet “OMG - I’m backstage at the Oscars!” pix), PWC needs a better protocol to handle the envelopes.
One thought is that they need a team of two on each side: an accountant with the envelopes and who knows who the winners are, and an envelope flunky with a garbage bin and a Sharpie.
Suppose Accountant A on one side of the stage is the one who gives the envelope for an award (Best Supporting Actor) to the presenters who go on-stage to give the award.
Accountant B on the other side of the stage should immediately pull his/her envelope for Best Supporting Actor out of his/her briefcase, and hand it to Envelope Flunky B, who puts a big black Sharpie X across it, then puts it in the garbage bin.
Then on the next award, when Accountant B hands the presenters the envelope for Best Technical Thingamajigs, Accountant A on the other side of the stage pulls that envelope out of his/her set and gives it to Envelope Flunky A for the Sharpie/garbage bin treatment.
Simple, but it means that each Accountants’ set of envelopes is in tandem, and neither still has an envelope in their set for an award that’s already been given out, which seems to have been part of the problem here. And if by chance the wrong envelope still gets handed out, the big black Sharpie X on the envelope is a clear warning to the presenters that a mistake has been made.
And yes, neither one of these accountants is fit to watch the Piper Cub at a pool or lakeside. I know what he’s capable of with just a moment’s inattention! (The episode where, age 4, he started to take a motorboat out for a spin by himself comes to mind :eek: )
Wouldn’t a simpler solution be to have two sets of envelopes, but only one set is actually handed out unless there is an emergency? No switching from one source to another. If people need to enter from both sides (if you watch the telecast, there is no obvious reason they need to), then they can be divvied up or have a runner take them. But there should not be duplicates in play.
I didn’t read this article, so I hope I’m not re-stating what’s in it…
When discussing bad medical outcomes, one of the metaphors often used is the ‘stacked Swiss cheese’ model. That is, if you randomly stack a dozen slices of Swiss cheese, it is very unlikely that the holes in the 12 slices of cheese will line up so that there is an aligned passage through the entire stack. Each slice of cheese represents a safety mechanism (proper identification of the surgical site, as an example).
When a major medical error occurs, it is because an entire series of safety precautions failed. In other words, the slices of cheese lined up perfectly for something to slip through the entire stack. A rare occurrence, but something that would have been prevented if just *one *of the safety measures had worked as they should.
But, in cases with bad outcomes, every single one fails.
mmm
I wouldn’t think so, for two reasons.
-
Professionals adapt their processes to the needs of the client, not the other way around. The client here wants to be able to use both sides of the stage for entries throughout the night, with the possibility of changes as the night goes on (it may look slick and thoroughly orchestrated on tv, but backstage for such a major event is very dynamic, with the possibility of last minute changes). So, PW has to have a system that works for presenters coming from either side, with the possibility of changes in the order or the side during the night: that’s what the client needs.
-
A runner wouldn’t work, because the runner would have to go from one side, all the way around the back of the set and come to the other side. Back stage, those sets are always being moved; can’t take a chance of the runner’s path being momentarily blocked, or even the runner possibly being injured.
So it sounds like they need a system of two sets of envelopes, one on each side of the stage. The professional issue for them is how to make that system as fool-proof as possible.
Still falls hard on the two who were there. They’re the pros who said in advance that they knew that their job was to step in, if a mistake was made. In fact, they were the only ones who could know that a mistake had been made. They had to be ready for that: that was a key part of their professional commitment, not just handing out envelopes.
And yes, PW didn’t have good procedures. But, as the ones on the spot, it fell to them to do everything they could to improve those processes in advance.
I’ve been the point person on major public announcements. I sit down well in advance with the people planning and do everything I can to understand the risks and make contingency plans, precisely because it’s my professional rep that is on the line if there’s a screw-up.
Saying to the media a couple of days beforehand that there’s no plan to deal with a screw-up because it’s never happened, as one of the accountants did this year, is an admission of a screw-up by that professional.
“I don’t have a plan for a screw-up because screw-ups never happen” is negligence, right there, especially in light of the Miss Universe episode just a couple of years ago.
Interesting story!
Definitely. They aren’t blameless.
I too have been the point person on major public events. You have to have good procedures and contingency plans to mitigate any mistakes. You cannot predict all failures, but you can and should think through reasonably foreseeable situations. And if the unforeseeable occurs, having good procedures and contingency plans prepares you to better handle the unforeseeable. You must act to rectify the situation, even if the act means you do nothing - it depends on the situation. The PWC partners failed to act when they should have.
Two good points from the article:
This - and just make all presenters come from one side.
The worst part is that Beatty KNEW it was the wrong envelope and didn’t know what to do. How hard would it be to tell the presenters “If you think you have the wrong envelope …”
When did he know he had the wrong envelope? If I were him, I wouldn’t have looked at it to be sure I was given the correct one. Obviously, when he opened the envelope and looked at the card, he knew there was a problem, which is why he hesitated and showed it to Faye Dunaway, as if to say, “Does this look right to you?”
Edited to add, the blame is entirely on the heads of the two accountants, for giving him the wrong envelope and then for not speaking out immediately upon hearing the wrong film be named. Remember, no one else knew who won.
So the accountants tell their client that for the biggest live event each year in Hollywood, the client can only use half of its facility to make sure the accountants don’t screw up?
That’s just not right - see my earlier comment - professionals adapt their processes to the client’s needs, not tell the client to adapt their needs to the professionals’ processes.
The stage is the centre point, but the back stage wings on both sides are part of the working area of a stage. In particular, you can have dressing rooms, Green rooms and toilets on both sides of the stage. Having some presenters come from one side, and some from the other, means that the producer can use the full back-stage area to its full effect. Telling them all presenters have to come from one side immediately restricts the use to only one backstage wing, which can cause logistical difficulties. Forget about sharing bathrooms - making some of those folks share their ego space - oh my!
Plus, there’s all the other stuff that is taking place on the stage, like the musical and dance events. The producer of the show needs to have the full stage and back-stage wings available. As soon as you say that the presenters all have to come from one side, it puts restrictions on what the producer can do with the rest of the show, like entrances and exits of the performers, stage equipment, and so on.
Professionals adapt their processes to meet the needs of the client.
Professionals tell their clients about the risks of meeting the clients’ wants or, if the risks are too high for them to perform up to their professional standards, tell the clients that they can’t do what they want.
Hollywood just needs more people who can do their jobs.
Watch the replays. ISTM that he knew before he did all of these:
- said, “The Academy Award…” (pause)
- looks at the card again
- said, “… for Best Picture…”
- hands the card to Faye Dunaway
FTR, I don’t think he was putting Faye Dunaway on the spot. I believe he was showing her the card as if to say, Look here, we have the wrong card.
He did not have to do #1-4 above. Yet he did.
See first 15 seconds here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8KeOxeuiZjs