Blame it on the down economy, and the accompanying desire for escapist entertainment. Or perhaps it’s the fault of the nasty winter weather, which continued to break records nationwide (global warming, or new ice age?). Who wants to go outside?
Or maybe there simply wasn’t anything else worth watching on Sunday night.
At any rate, the 81st annual Academy Awards telecast drew 36.3 million viewers, an increase of 13 percent over the 32 million who caught the show last year, according to a report in the New York Times. Viewership grew by 22 percent among men ages 18 to 34.
That’s despite the predictable post-show grumbling by television critics and others, some of whom probably wouldn’t be pleased by the Oscars even if the telecast ran no more than two hours and was the funniest thing on TV.
By the way, some of these same critics kill acres of trees in the course of endlessly hyping such awful “reality” programming as “American Idol” and “Dancing With the Stars” and “The Bachelor” and “The Biggest Loser.” Like they know from quality.
More factoids: Viewership for the show peaked in 1998, when 55 million watched Titanic win 11 Oscars, including best picture and best director (James Cameron). More than 40 million watched the Oscars show in 2007, when the award for best picture went to Martin Scorsese’s The Departed.
So much for those who would want to force the Oscars to honor only the year’s biggest crowd-pleasers.* Isn’t television already overwhelmed with popularity contests?
*(This is NOT a dis on The Dark Knight, which deserved Oscar attention on artistic merit alone. Its exclusion had more to do with a)a general disrespect for comic-book culture, and b)a liberal political agenda that clearly dominates the thinking of Hollywood types).
UPDATE: Mary McNamara, a television critic for the L.A.Times, writes, “If nothing else, the 81st version proved that the Oscars are important after all, that in this digitally splintered world where everyone can find something better to do every single second of the day, there remain media and entertainment experiences we long to share with one another.” The rest of her piece.
2 responses to “Oscar Talk: Viewership Jumps”
Hello, Newman!
Hmmm.
I think most folks who have watched Hollywood over a long period, and have seen the kinds of films that do and don’t get the greenlight, particularly those “serious” films with social/political messages, would agree that Hollywood is a bastion of liberal politics. Some of those films, by the way, are on my list of all-time favorite movies. And, aside from the most egregious examples (like Maher’s faith-mocking movie) it generally doesn’t bother me whether a film’s politics can be viewed as “liberal” or “conservative.” Good writing, directing and acting is good writing, directing and acting, no matter the political POV.
But, back to the Hollywood liberalism. Just one example: Care to count how many actors, directors and screenwriter lined up to publicly support Obama, and donate hundreds of millions to his campaign, versus those that lined behind McCain. The ratio was, what 100 to 1? 1,000 to 1?
On the other hand, Hollywood types who have lined up behind conservative politicians and conservative causes in recent years are few and far between.
And who said I hated the “more visible, younger Hollywood liberals”? Not true at all, as I have championed many of their films. But why would you (or they) get upset about being called political liberals? They are, aren’t they? Why are people whose politics are liberal so afraid of being called liberal, anyway?
As far as the younger Hollywood talent not being members of the Academy and thus not having influence over the Oscars — I guess so. I’d like to see the membership stats. But, as is generally understood, the chief influencers in Hollywood historically have been political liberals.
Yes, Charlton Heston was a notable exception, but I would bet big $$ that, if you took a poll of Academy members, even those in their 60s, 70s, 80s and older, you’d find that by far the large majority of those people would describe themselves as politically liberal. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
You’ll notice that first on my list of reasons why The Dark Knight received so few Oscar noms was “general disrespect for comic-book culture,” and a corollary is … Oscar voters just don’t like superhero movies. IMO, that’s the biggest reason for the dis – those types of movies aren’t viewed as “serious” enough for Oscar attention.
I have no idea how political sentiments fall out among fans of comic books, although I have a few theories.
But in the case of this particular movie with roots in comic books, I’d suggest that some have viewed The Dark Force as being “conservative,” in terms of the ways in which (and to whom) violence was applied. Some, alternately, have viewed its politics as “liberal.”
And if you looked at some of the films that were nominated for best picture, it’d be hard to argue that liberal politics didn’t have some impact, which made it harder for The Dark Knight — which seems to carry a mix of conservative and liberal politics — to gain much of a foothold when it came to major Hollywood awards.
Its success, though, is assured, as the film has now hit $1 billion in box-office returns. And, as we both know, the color of money — how likely a movie is to make money, and how much — is the most important consideration when it comes to Hollywood’s decisions regarding whether to finance any given movie.
Thanks for reading.
Points well taken, sir.