Among many of the bizarre happenings on Sunday night during the 85th annual Academy Awards, one of them was the unique finale, in which host Seth MacFarlane began singing a closing number with Kristin Chenoweth celebrating “the losers.” The musical number went on throughout the closing credits, and featured tailored lyrics for some of the nights big “losers” such as “Lincoln” and “Zero Dark Thirty.”
Even more unorthodox for the ceremonious event, ABC tacked on a quick bit at the very end, explaining how each award is voted on. This strange ending showcases a major problem with the Academy Awards: they are having an identity crisis.
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the honorary organization of people who run the show, wants the public to believe this event is about celebrating the art of film. At the same time, they want to reach a massive portion of the population.
There are a few problems with this, however. The first problem is that a celebration of any art is nearly impossible to sell to a mass audience. An awards show with clear “winners” and “losers,” however, sounds a little more appealing. For years, the Oscars have straddled the line between the two. It is time for a change.
If the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences wants its traditional event to truly celebrate films, then it should no longer be in prime time, or on a grand scale. On the other hand, if the Academy wants money, distinct winners and losers and national interest, then it must adjust its awards categories.
The reasoning for this change lies in the Nielsen television ratings for this event. The Oscars are struggling to gain a strong audience befitting of its grand production value. The younger generation may not be entirely in-tune to what the Oscars are supposed to be about.
Why else would someone like Seth MacFarlane be hosting the Oscars? While MacFarlane’s presence did cause a slight spike in views from the 18-49 year old crowd, this faction has been a problem regardless of who has been hosting.
In an article for The New York Times, Brooks Barnes and Michael Cieply wrote about the troubling aspect of flat viewership. To cite an example, when “The Artist” won Best Picture in 2012, the two reported that ABC estimated 39.3 million people tuned-in. Only 14.9 million of those estimated viewers were between the ages of 18 and 49.
In fact, the ratings for the three ceremonies prior to 2012 have hovered around 20 on the Nielsen scale with an average of between 30-40 million viewers. These are modest ratings, at best, for any primetime, Sunday night, once-a-year event.
By comparison, the Super Bowl attracts an average of over 100 million without really breaking a sweat. The Oscars are like the Super Bowl of the film world for many people. Critics and moviegoers alike get incredibly wrapped up in everything from the red carpet to the “snubs of the night.”
Watching a twitter feed on Oscar night is a bit like what a twitter feed looks like on game day. The only problem is that it is a real appreciation of the art of filmmaking is entirely subjective. In other words there would be no “snubs” or clear winners and losers.
However, every single year the media reports about the “winners” and “losers” of Oscar night and who lost big. This defeats the purpose of a night that is supposed to be a celebration of the art of filmmaking.
The problem is that, for years, presenters always uttered the phrase “And the winner is...” To the Academy’s credit, the phrase was later changed to “And the Oscar goes to...” This subtle change in wording was merely a feeble attempt to remind the public of the original purpose of this event. However, when something is on a scale as grand as this, there has to be a “winner.”
If the Oscars were truly celebrating the art of film, then there would not be the need for a lavish ceremony on live TV. If there were a real appreciation for filmmaking, then there would be a heavier emphasis on the technical aspects of filmmaking. In other words, the little nuts and bolts that makes films tick.
As of right now, those categories seem trivial and much like “filler awards” to the masses. They are simply filling up time for the real awards, such as Best Director, Best Picture and the acting awards.
When you look beyond the world of the Academy Awards, then you see a picture of numerous award shows between December and March.
The only thing separating the Oscars from that crowd is history and a name. If the Academy truly wants mass-appeal, then they need to stop pretending. They need to simply be that mass- appeal awards show that is hiding under the lavish set design.
*** This editorial is an opinion stated by the writer and does not represent the views of The Rotunda or Longwood University.
