Hollywood's Biggest Night

Last night's Oscars were the lowest-rated ever. I didn't think they were any worse than any recent telecast and I can give you a couple of reasons why the numbers were so bad. In fact, here's three…

  1. Few moviegoers had any emotions attached to any of the nominees. The field this year was full of good movies with good performances but they commanded respect more than love. The question generating the most suspense was "Will they open the right envelope this time?"
  2. The ratings of most things on broadcast television are going down. Why should the Academy Awards be any different?
  3. Here's a point I rarely see anyone mention. Audiences these days are becoming more and more accustomed to watching TV shows with no commercial interruptions. The commercials on the Super Bowl seem less frequent and they're a point of interest by themselves. More and more though, I think all those cutaways to ads throughout the Oscars are seeming more and more intrusive.

Jimmy Kimmel did as good a job as host as anyone has for years. I like him more than I used to but I still see him as a competent guy who does a decent job reading — and perhaps selecting and editing — what is usually pretty good material. What he lacks as an Oscar host is importance. It's nothing special to see Jimmy Kimmel host a TV program that starts with a monologue. He does that (literally) across the street five times a week.  I understand why ABC wants to promote their late-night host but maybe, some year, they might try having this show about movie stars hosted by a movie star?

That said, I don't think Kimmel is the reason the ratings were so low.  I think America just didn't care that much who won.

The one thing that bothered me during the proceedings was the little field trip…when Kimmel took a bunch of A-list stars next door to interrupt a regular movie screening.  There was a certain air of condescension to it…as there is in most of Kimmel's outside-the-studio stunts.  In this case, the premise felt like "Let's take royalty over and watch the peons go out of their minds with worship and hysteria."

When the stars started tossing Raisinets to them and firing hot dogs at them from a hot dog cannon, it reminded me of Donald Trump cluelessly lobbing rolls of paper towels to desperate, homeless Puerto Ricans.  And yeah, I guess I'm exaggerating a bit but maybe a fourth reason fewer people were watching is that the public is getting tired of watching the rich and famous celebrate how rich and famous they are.  An awful lot of folks in this country think Big Stars look down on them…and certainly some do.

But I still don't think it was a bad show.

As usual, folks are grousing over who might have been in the "In Memoriam" reel and wasn't.  Among those who could have been there were Dorothy Malone, Glen Campbell, John Hillerman, Rose Marie, Stephen Furst, Powers Boothe, Miguel Ferrer, Robert Guillaume and Frank Vincent…and that's just among the actors.  Nice though to see June Foray and stuntman Loren Janes.  And to hear Len Wein mentioned when they read the screenwriting nomination for Logan.

I'm not suggesting there's a way to have an "In Memoriam" segment without a few somebodies being omitted.  But given how much time-wasting goes on at these things, I don't think it would be wrong to extend the montage another minute or so and get thirty more names in.

Lastly: Let's not forget the main reason for this show each year.  It's to give Ken Levine something to write snarky insults about.  Listen to his podcast and you'll be glad they have this ceremony.