The 81st Academy Awards held at the Kodak Theatre went off without a hitch, or so it seemed. The theme was “bad economy chic” (something Ryan Seacrest mindlessly blabbed on and on about all night), but producers Laurence Mark and Bill Condon did their best to advertise that this year they’d be shaking things up a bit.
For one, the names of the presenters were kept secret, though it was leaked that Twilight heartthrob, Robert Pattinson, was set to present. The presenters were also given a separate entryway away from the red carpet (that not all of them used) so their identities would be kept a secret.
Secondly, Hugh Jackman was appointed emcee for the night. This was a big departure from the regular pool of hosts who are usually considered. Comedians have headlined the shows for years, everyone from Whoopi to Billy Crystal. Hugh was an interesting choice. He was of course charming and devilishly handsome, but he lacked the formality of former hosts, which is ironic. His star studded musical numbers , staged by Baz Lurman, replaced a lot of the awkward banter and pre-recorded sketches that plagued the awards before but were a bit baffling to watch.
Lastly, the acceptance speeches were strictly limited to 45 seconds. The rule was observed for the most part, but come on. It’s always really funny to see the music start playing over someone in the middle of a sentence.
These efforts were just different, minimally interesting at best. They were not enough to get ratings .
All of these “changes” were of course in an effort to increase viewership, which in turn might increase revenue. It worked, sort of, not really. ABC, which pays the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences anywhere from the high 40’s to about 50 million dollars in licensing fees to air the show, only made about 72 million. The dwindling economy forced the network to charge only 1.4 million per 30 second ad spot as opposed to last year’s 1.7. Noticeably missing from the list of advertisers were the former Oscar giants Loreal and GM, both of which used to spend up to 10 million a year to advertise during the Awards. However, this made way for newcomers like Audi, Maytag, Coca Cola, and Sprint. It also made way for Disney and Paramount to advertise their up and coming films, something that has never been done before. Maybe when the economy is back up again ABC, or whichever network is licensed at the time, will be able to make big bucks off of movie promos.
But the question remains, why is viewership of the Oscars, and award shows in general, down? And, what does this mean for the future broadcasting of awards?
It’s the irrelevance of the Awards to the audience at home that make us not want to watch. Honestly, I like reading the real-time online bloging or watching the pre-awards red carpet interviews (for the fashion, of course) more than the actual show itself. I had to catch the Awards this year because I had to write some news scripts for these shows I work on (watch Take 5 and Annenberg TV News on Trojan Vision!).
So, the solution? The only way to significantly increase viewership is to award those movies that we care about, the ones that hit big in the box office, case in point, the 70th Academy Awards in 1998. That show had 57.25 million viewers as opposed to this year’s 36.94 (which is up only 6% from last year). Why? Because, Titanic, the overwhelming fan favorite, was nominated for and won for best picture. The fans had a reason to watch and did so mainly to support a movie they could stand by.
Let’s fast forward back to this year. None of the other “best picture” nominated movies were clear fan favorites with the exception of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. While Benjamin has made 177 million dollars in the box office so far, the other four nominees have made that much, combined. Let me reiterate, box office numbers translate into fan favorites. They show what movies we, the audience at home, really care about. Of course, the point of the Oscars is for those of the industry to reward each other. It isn’t the People’s Choice Awards, after all. But, that’s just it. It’s the industry rewarding itself, so where exactly do we fit into that equation? The only truly relevant aspect of the Awards is the fashion, and that’s only because we can anticipate which designer knock offs will be in stores soon. Of course, one might argue that recognition of these less popular movies that truly embody the principles and characteristics of good cinema may make people go out and see them, but ever heard of the "Oscar curse" ? Just because a movie, writer, director, or actor wins recognition, it doesn’t always mean they will become more successful. In fact, it’s just the opposite in some cases (Helen Hunt, James Cameron, and Mira Sorvino are just a few examples).
There it is, the pink elephant in the room. We don’t watch because we don’t care. So, as long as the purpose and structure of these awards don’t change, we won’t budge either. Better luck next year!
Here’s a complete list of all of the winners and nominees, and here’s a countdown of the 10 funniest moments of the Oscars. My personal favorite: #10. Too good.
