Who Should Play Jamie Oliver?

A Little Justice | Photo: orangesparrow/Flickr/Creative Commons License

If you're one of the tens of people who have yet to be overwhelmed by the ubiquitous presence of celebrity chef/author/media-thing Jamie Oliver, then you're in luck: His quest to bring about change in the Los Angeles public school lunch system -- which, all kidding aside, is a pretty great cause -- is about to get the Hollywood-ized treatment. A fictionalized and comedically-enhanced script based on the second season of Oliver's show "Food Revolution" is supposedly getting put on the ol' fast track to the big screen. (It certainly helps matters when Ryan Seacrest, who also produced the show, is signing on in one of those nebulous "producer" roles.)

As of now, the supposed short list for the starring role -- ostensibly, the person to play the character inspired by Oliver -- is down to two nominees: Will Ferrell and Sean William Scott. Being the investigative journalist I am, I decided to look at the two actors, their respective bodies of work, and various factoids and intangibles in order to use scientific-ish reasoning to determine who'd be better in the role. Let's look at the pros and cons, shall we?

Will Ferrell

PROS: Master Of All Accents; born in Irvine, so, he's local; has no problem with nudity, if they decide to throw out a pun-based shout-out to "The Naked Chef;" has an estimated net worth of $80 million, much closer to Oliver's $170 million figure than Scott; married since 2000, just like Jamie.

CONS: If he's cast, it will probably mean the movie's a bit more "comedic" than "realistic," which could do Oliver's revolution a bit of a disservice; it will presumably take time away from giving interviews in character as Ron Burgundy to hype the new "Anchorman," which will do us all a disservice; doesn't respect nut allergies; loves Sbarro; has portrayed someone who believed the moon was made out of cheese, which just isn't accurate at all.

Story continues below

Seann William Scott

PROS: At 35 years old, he's more "age accurate" to portray Oliver than the 45-year-old Ferrell; if it's a bit serious, could be a nice "reinventing himself" role, and the media hype machine loves those; has guest-hosted on "Live! with Regis and Kelly," so he's got the whole hosting-a-TV-show thing down, which presumably will be part of the performance; co-starred with The Rock, so he's been around someone who is constantly asking others to smell his cooking; kind of has that same "I'm getting away with something here" smirk; Oliver married a former model, Scott is currently engaged to one.

CONS: Spells his first name with two n's, right next to each other, which just seems redundant; "Southland Tales;" is Stifler really believable as someone focused on worrying about the nutrition of children?; has yet to prove himself in a movie that doesn't have a dick joke in it.

So what does all that add up to? Honestly, I have no idea. So it's time for you to make the decision. Who ya got?

We are dedicated to providing you with articles like this one. Show your support with a tax-deductible contribution to KCET. After all, public media is meant for the public. It belongs to all of us.

Keep Reading