There’s been a lot of handwringing and fingerpointing over the record low ratings of Sunday’s Oscar telecast, but it’s actually pretty easy to place the blame: It’s mainstream Hollywood’s fault. People didn’t watch because they didn’t have a rooting interest in the nominated movies, since they hadn’t seen most of them. And that’s because they were mostly indie movies that didn’t have the marketing and distribution behind them that big-studio movies typically have. Viewership always spikes in those years when hit movies that have been well marketed and widely distributed are the top contenders (Titanic, Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, The Departed). But those years are almost accidental now because the studios generally are not in the business of making Oscar-worthy movies. They’ve left that business to the indies (or the studios’ own quasi-indie specialty divisions). The Oscars has therefore become a niche show, not much different from the Independent Spirit awards, only with better clothes. The mystery isn’t why fewer people are watching, it’s why the Oscars can draw an audience as large as that for an American Idol season premiere.
I’ve seen a lot of complaints that the Oscars are out of touch, that the show would be a bigger draw if they’d stop picking critic-approved movies with foreign stars and become more populist. This sounds suicidal to me. Sure, the Academy could dispense with voting altogether, simply look at the box office chart, and pick something like Transformers as Best Picture every year. But the only reason anyone wants to win an Oscar is the sense that it’s based more on artistic merit than on popularity. Simply awarding the top ticket sellers would turn the Oscars into the People’s Choice Awards — which, last time I checked, has never been anywhere near the ratings-grabber that the Oscars is.
In order for the show to draw more viewers, it’s not the Academy that should change, it’s Hollywood. The major studios would have to develop an interest in making movies with artistic merit and not just lowest common denominator blockbusters. Or they’d have to back their specialty divisions with real marketing and distribution power, so that the awards contenders aren’t just playing in Los Angeles and New York during awards season. At the very least, everyone would have to get out of the mindset that the last few weeks of the year are the only time anyone wants to see grown-up, awards-worthy movies and release them earlier in the year, so they could be out on DVD by the time the nominations are announced and people who hadn’t seen them in the theater could at last have access to them. But Hollywood is not interested in making any of these changes or creating a culture that actually appreciates film, and one of the most egregious signs of this came during the ceremony itself, when Cameron Diaz (pictured) took the podium.
Not to pick on Diaz, who stumbled over the word "cinematography," since she didn’t write her own presentation patter. Still, some Hollywood writer, someone employed by the Academy (and who should, therefore, have a sense of history and context) actually wrote her lines, which poked fun at 1928 Oscar-winner Sunrise for having characters so archetypal that they were credited as "Man," "Wife," and "Woman from the City." Now, Sunrise is a parable, so it naturally features stock characters, but it’s also one of the most beautiful movies ever made — intensely emotional, lovingly detailed, and gorgeously shot in some of the most stunning black-and-white camerawork in film history. That a film as visually sumptuous as Sunrise could get a knock during a cinematography award presentation is an especially stinging insult, but perhaps an inevitable one in a culture whose memory of film history goes back only about five minutes. Literally, in this case; anyone making fun of a movie for having nameless archetypes as main characters obviously hasn’t seen Once — you know, the movie that won Best Song only moments before Diaz took the stage. Audiences everywhere ought to be better educated about the glorious wealth of movies, old and new, available to them, but it’s clear that that education is going to have to start among Hollywood’s own gatekeepers.
Comments (1-30) of 67 Add your comment
wow. i fully agree. i live in a small arkansas town, and NONE of the five best picture nominees came to our town. i still watched the oscars, but it would have been a hell of a lot more fun if i’d had any vested interest in who won and who lost based on something other than their public persona.
very very well-written
I agree that it’s the movies that mostly affect the ratings of the Oscars telecast. The Oscars recognizing box office more than artistry is unthinkable, so what else is there to do for Gil Cates and Co.? I read somewhere (I think USA Today) that maybe they could get a more widely-likable host, perhaps Will Smith? I know the host won’t affect it that much but hey it doesn’t hurt to try…
I still haven’t seen “There Will Be Blood.” I want to, but I don’t want to have to go into Boston to do it.
Granted, just having seen the movies wouldn’t make me want to watch the Oscars. I can find out the winners the next day easy enough. And I prefer reading various critics’ lists, they always have a couple of surprises on there.
So true.
The Acadmey should be proud of their winners this year. They were all excellent and very deserving.
So true.
The Acadmey should be proud of their winners this year. They were all excellent and very deserving.
The ratings also vary from hour to hour during the course of the show, usually sagging in the middle when they do the documentaries and other technical awards. And when the Oscars lose some viewers they don’t come back. There has to be something that can increase the suspense and keep people entertained. Frankly, I would like to see them make a bigger deal of the musical nominations, but Oscar producers rarely if ever gotten this one right. It seems that this year’s writing and montages were the worst.
I think the Academy might think that they have to ‘write down’ for these type of awards to keep the audience at home watching. If indeed that is what they are thinking then the cinematography, editing, effects, etc. awards should be presented like the technical awards are – separately. That way the televised awards could include all the couture etc., be 90 minutes long, have as many montages as anyone could produce and still feel as if they are supporting true film artistry. A somewhat alienating solution since it takes hundreds of people to make a film – but an idea nonetheless.
By the way – This is why I love the popwatch blog. I get to dish and mock celebrities and also read really well thought out ideas and opinions on popular culture. I like all the writers on ew.com – I want Gary Susman to live with me. My family won’t care – I don’t think.
Great writing, Gary, and I couldn’t agree more. As a 37-year-old mother, I often feel like big movies are marketed at my 14-year-old nephew. That’s why I was disappointed when “The Bourne Ultimatum” wasn’t nominated for Best Picture. It’s an action film with great characters, a thoughtful premise and gripping action. And wow, what a shocker, it cleaned up at the box office too!
Great post, Gary. It would be a travesty if the Oscars lost their luster and started giving awards to sub-par movies merely because they were commercially successful. I could care less how many people are watching the show as long as the most artistically excellent movies continue to win. What are they going to do, cancel the Oscars because of poor ratings? I doubt it.
Hear hear!
I actually thought the Oscars got it just right this year. So many past years were full of overblown spectacles. If honoring excellent writing, acting, directing and cinematography is bad for ratings…so be it…and if they want Americans to win more awards, they need to make better movies.
I agree with everything in this blog! Especially the part about movie studios releasing Oscar worthy movies earlier in the year. I live in a small town in Tennessee, and I really try to see as many of the nominated films as possible. However, I usually do not have access to many of them, because of my location and due to the fact that they are not on DVD yet. I am proud to say that this year I was able to see 4 out of the 5 Best Picture nominees. Maybe one day Hollywood will get a clue!
It also doesn’t help that all the nominated movies were depression-fests. As if any movie that doesn’t imply that the world is not worth living in is not worth watching. Nobody wants to watch that
I agree…it’s not that people don’t know about this year nominees because they didn’t want to see them but because they couldn’t see them, the poor distribution is something that has to change so everybody can watch these amazing films (and this year case truly amazing)..that was my complaint last year when Children of Men, a fantastic movie, got such a poor distribution deal from Universal, that movie had everything to attract a huge audience but the studio had no interest in showing it…
Hollywood knows very well that it’s main target audience are immature, inconsiderate, cell-phone-yaking idiots, and they cater garbage films like TRANSFORMERS to their idiot tastes. Most people don’t want to bother watching a film in which (Heaven forbid!) they might have to take a moment and use what little brain they have! Most indie films that are nominated for best picture of the year deserve it because (pay attention now, idiots) it’s just a well-written, intelligent STORY! And if Hollywood cannot recognize the simple value in that alone and put more marketing efforts into it, they should fold their tents now and disappear forever. I won’t miss them!
By the way, does anybody else remember that CHARIOTS OF FIRE won best picture of 1981 and was released by the major Hollywood studio known as Warner Brothers? Ah, the days of Hollywood’s artistic past…it’s dead now!
The real problem is that the awards are supposed to honor excellence in film making, but the Oscars are trying to attract people (like me) who go to the movies to be entertained and enjoy themselves. Without reconciling conflicting goals (and no I don’t think the answer is to nominate Spiderman 3) the Academy Awards are going to feel like something is lacking.
But the thing is, this year there were hit movies from major studios that were intelligent and Oscar-worthy. Knocked Up, Superbad, and the Simpsons Movie were three of the funniest movies I have ever seen. Ratatouille will probably go down as one of the best animated movies ever made, and was one of the best movies of this year, animated or not. The Bourne Ultimatum was an intelligent, gripping thriller. Any of these movies would have made worthy Oscar contenders. So no, I don’t think the disconnect is all Hollywoods fault. Partly, sure, but the Academy has to change too.
Gary (and others): I have faulted this year’s Oscar telecast as again failing to properly accorded respect to nominees/winners/film history: For me, more egregious than the cinematography presentation was the camera cutting to Bill Conti and to the audience when Glen Hansard and Marketa Irglova were still finishing their Best Song performance). This too seems to support your view – which I am wholly in agreement with – that Hollywood treats quality films poorly on the whole. It’s like failing to feed your show pony for ten months of the year then bringing him out come Awards time expecting everyone to drop everything and say how pretty that little skeleton is looking. If Hollywood doesn’t care about raising the bar to provide challenging and entertaining adult-themed films throughout the year to reward audiences and film-makers alike, ultimately why should we?
Got a feeling we will all be back here this time next year making the same types of comments. Sigh.
Most of the so called ‘independent’ studios are just subsidiaries of the major ones. The money made off of the huge blockbusters now helps fund the smaller movies. Ratings be damned — Afterall it’s the Oscars, not the People’s Choice Awards.
I’m so sick of everything being dumbed down for my consumption. What should they nominate for Best Picture? Fantastic Four? Transformers? The big “hit” movies are all over-hyped and bottom out after the first huge week, when everybody figures out what the fuss was about. The Oscars are there to honor quality, and should remain doing so. If someone watches the Oscars and then discovers Once or Away from Her, then great. If they don’t tune in in the first place because they haven’t heard of the nominees, then they get left behind. Period. I’m cool with that. Stupid people should have less fun than the rest of us. I live in the Midwest and saw all five best picture nominees, all the acting nominees, and four of the documentaries. It’s not that hard.
With the exception of the last ten minutes, to see what wins best picture of the year, I will NEVER watch the Oscars again! It’s not worth my time or my brain cells!
I thought the best part of the night is when they went through all the previous Best Picture winners, and how many of them were such stinkers. It was pretty funny — and not something I want repeated. Not everyone can agree on what movie is “the best” but at least they should try not to be laughing stocks.
Also, it’s rare that Oscars are a surprise anymore. Not even the winners seem all that surprised — or pleased for that matter.
to ryan b: i don’t appreciate being called stupid just because i like my movie going experience to be fun and upbeat, not some sad faced, 2 hr long, depressing episode, like most of those independent movies are, that get nominated for Oscars. if i want that, i’ll just stay home and watch CNN or the local news; thanks but no thanks. i agree with diane, some of us want to go to the movies to get away from reality and be entertained.
To teneil and all the other “we just want to be entertained” people: The indie movies this year were all also the most entertaining. If having to concentrate on plot and characters and think about the larger meanings of a film mean that you can’t be entertained then I guess you really are the target audience of every Hollywood studio. Don’t get me wrong, I rented Transformers and even liked it (thank you, Shia Lebouf) but movies like that are not the kind the resonate and survive for decades. Its perfectly okay to see popcorn movies… as long as that is not the only kind of movie you see.
Anyone who thinks Oscar nominated films are all depressing has never seen Juno.
Jenners- I agree that Transformers is not the kind of movie that will resonate decades from now, but I do think that there are “popcorn movies” that stand the test of time, and I don’t see any reason for the Academy to ignore them. For example, Jaws, the original Star Wars trilogy, and the Indiana Jones movies are all considered classics by many people, and they are probably the quintessential popcorn movie. I think that when a movie comes out whose main purpose is to be very entertaining and it succeeds masterfully at that, the Academy should not dismiss it out of hand.
Your point is a lot less effective when you are so abrasive. Why be so rude about it?
To Kevin: Funnily enough you disproved your own complaint about the Academy’s inability to honor popcorn and mainstream films by citing Jaws, Star Wars, and Indiana Jones(Raiders of the Lost Ark); all films nominated for best picture.
Gary I COMPLETELY agree with this blog. It was a fluke that Juno even premiered, not because it wasn’t great but because studios don’t trust American people to go see smart, gripping movies that don’t have a big action scene in the middle. I hope they’re starting to realize that the Americans that save shows like 30 Rock, Lost and The Office actually want to go see movies too, not just the reality TV junkies that will sell out your “Another Teen Movie”.