Oscar shocker: The ratings are up!
We're still waiting for the final numbers, but my paper is reporting that the Academy Awards' ratings were up perhaps as much as 6% over last year, which had set a record low for Oscar ratings. The show is likely to remain one of the three least-watched Oscars of all time, but still--how did such a lackluster show get any kind of ratings bounce at all?
Theory No. 1: The critics were wrong. It wasn't such a bad show. Like most reviewers and pundits who watched the awards--including this assessment from our own wonderfully sharp-tongued TV critic, Mary McNamara--I thought the show had no pacing, too many wrong-headed ideas (like having aging Oscar winners tell us why they liked the work of the current nominees instead of just showing us their performances) and, most crucially, a host in Hugh Jackman who thought he was back on Broadway, doing "42nd Street," delivering not one but two excruciatingly bad musical numbers. As you can see from our Comments section, most of my readers disagree--they liked the show. Maybe they're more in touch with the average TV viewer than I am. It certainly wouldn't be the first time that's happened.
Theory No. 2: TV ratings have a lot more to do with expectations than execution. In other words, for people to block out time to watch a three-hour telecast, they have to be eager to see what's going to happen. Since the Oscars deliver plenty of star power every year, the key difference, year to year, is the lineup of movies, particularly the year's leading contender. This year's winner--and obvious front-runner going back to the holidays--"Slumdog Millionaire" was something special: It was the most upbeat, crowd-pleasingly popular best picture winner since "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" swept to victory in 2004. "Slumdog" gave viewers something unabashedly soulful and stirring, especially compared to the winners of recent vintage, which were largely downbeat, often extremely violent films that hardly spurred any serious rooting interest. For all its artistry, you could hardly imagine anyone perched on the living room couch, going "Come on, 'No Country for Old Men'!"
Theory No. 3: Moviegoing is way, way up this year, riding a wave of popular affection for films that we haven't seen in years. If more people are going to the movies, then maybe its possible that more people were eager to see a big, celebrity-studded show about movie making. Everyone simply had more skin in the game this year.
Theory No. 4: Hugh Jackman must've been right: I guess "Mamma Mia!" has brought back the musical for good. Maybe next year the Oscars will let Nathan Lane be the host, since he's not only funny but can dance too.
Photo of Hugh Jackman on Oscar night at the Kodak Theatre by Brett Ratner / ABC
The ratings are up because viewers didn't turn off their TVs the way they usually do during the Oscars. This was the first one where I watched the show all the way through.
Posted by: Ann | February 23, 2009 at 01:05 PM
Patrick Goldstein should be fired. He was so wrong about everything on the Oscars last night. I've watched the Oscars for the last 50 years and last night was the best since Bob Hope did the shows. Hugh Jackman gave the show style and excitement and yes he can also sing and dance. The staging of the show was sure old Hollywood and what's wrong with that. It hid the fact that most of the movies made today are crap. Having five past winners introduce those up for the awards was a wonderful touch that I hope will be continue. It was a great show, shame on Patrick Goldstein.
Posted by: Richard St.Hilaire | February 23, 2009 at 01:07 PM
Well, I didn't like the show so I don't get it either. Could it have been the High School Musical kids' fans?
Posted by: Aura | February 23, 2009 at 01:10 PM
Mary McNamara is a grouchy cynic. Everyone in our house read her review of the Oscars with incredulous amusement. There wasn't one point in her article to agree with. The biggest glitch of the night was Queen Latifah singing the inappropriate "I'll Be Seeing You" while the TV viewers COULDN'T SEE many of the deceased who were being honored. Her singing was uninspired and her presence as Jenny Craig's biggest embarrassment were much too distracting. Yet McNamara called this unseemly segment "brilliant." Hugh Jackman was fantastic and we don't understand why McNamara thinks there's some kind of shame in a popular Hollywood actor using his Broadway skills to liven up a normally dull show. Her implication that young boys will be turned off by Jackman's range as a performer is dated and condescending. Must everything be dumbed down for marketing to the adolescent market. Contrary to McNamara's childish "lets get on with it" view, the tributes to each individual acting nominee by former winners was moving and inspired. Jackman "making fun" of the nominated movies was inappropriate according to McNamara. Why is that? Maybe it wasn't as cool and youth-oriented as James Franco's mocking of serious films which McNamara deemed hilarious. McNamara needs to act her age and watch the Oscars with adults. Her tiresome effort to appear "hip" is inappropriate and doesn't serve the readers of your newspaper.
Posted by: Ivan Douglas | February 23, 2009 at 01:11 PM
Theory No. 1 is largely correct. Mr. Goldstein and Ms. McNamara are out of touch, sharp-tongued, and just plain old sour. The 16 viewers gathered at my party thoroughly enjoyed the show. So what if it wasn't perfect? It was fun.
Posted by: stlnylaphx | February 23, 2009 at 01:20 PM
Mr. Goldstein...You must have been in a bad mood when you critiqued the Academy awards. We thought it was a good show and much better than it has been in years. Hugh Jackman is so very talented. The new set up on stage was terrific. The past winners showing up and giving introduction to the nominees, in my mind was very creative.
I have spoken to so many friends this morning and everyone loved the show! Have we or you missed something?
Posted by: Marilyn Williams | February 23, 2009 at 01:21 PM
I thought it was an unusually good show. Faster paced, with fewer transitions. I really liked the way they did the editing and other awards and I really liked having the 5 presenters who talked about what they saw in the acting. (Those 5 second clips of the actors never really give you any sense of the acting anyway - they are too short, show dramatic scenes and are taken out of context). I really enjoyed the show (surprisingly because I usually find the shows awful. The critics are crazy this time.
Posted by: Felix | February 23, 2009 at 01:34 PM
What critics are you talking about that didnt like the show? Everyone I speak to absolutely loved it.
Posted by: graeme | February 23, 2009 at 01:36 PM
The best Oscar show ever. Real class, quality presentations and nothing negative the entire evening. Hugh Jackman has real talent and the ability to control an audience. No winner was forced to cut short their speech and it really looked like all who attended the affair had a great time.
Posted by: Dave Walker | February 23, 2009 at 01:38 PM
I really enjoyed the Oscars and hadn't seen most of the movies!
It felt updated...like the White House. FINALLY to both.
Posted by: Todd | February 23, 2009 at 01:49 PM