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.
addCredit(“Cameron Diaz: Kevin Winter/Getty Images”)
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.








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…