Were low Oscar ratings the fault of Anne Hathaway and James Franco or ‘The King’s Speech’?
This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.
ABC’s Oscar telecast on Sunday was supposed to ride a wave of popular resurgence for awards shows.
But looks like viewers didn’t get that message.
Countering a trend toward higher ratings this year for the Golden Globes, the Grammys and other awards shows, the critically scorned 83rd Academy Awards rounded up just 37.6 million total viewers, slumping 10% compared with last year, according to the Nielsen Co.
Worse, the Oscars also tumbled in the key category of adults aged 18 to 49, despite the youngest hosting combo in history with actors James Franco (32) and Anne Hathaway (28). The three-hour-plus show delivered an 11.7 rating, for an 11% drop in that advertiser-friendly category.
And then there were the reviews, which mostly ranged from the unimpressed to the downright brutal. Los Angeles Times critic Mary McNamara wrote that the cohosts did everything expected of them but nevertheless “played it safe.†The Hollywood Reporter said it was one of the all-time-worst Oscars telecasts. Commenters on the Times’ Show Tracker site criticized Hathaway as overeager and Franco as too detached.
“When Billy Crystal showed up onstage, I found myself hoping that the producers had brought him in as an emergency replacement,†ShariAnne Brill, a longtime TV programming and research analyst, said of the hosting combo.
As harsh as much of the reaction was, the show’s numbers actually could have been far worse. This year’s ratings fared better than in 2009, when “Slumdog Milionaire†won (36.3 million), and in 2008, when the best picture prize went to “No Country for Old Men†(32 million).
In fact, while much of the criticism centered on the hosts, analysis has repeatedly shown that Oscar ratings are closely tied to the box-office performances of the best-picture nominees. In 1998, the year the smash hit “Titanic†won, more than 57 million viewers tuned in.
This year’s winner, “The King’s Speech,†a surprise hit starring British actor Colin Firth that has grossed more than $114 million, led a pack of successful-if-not-blockbuster films (“True Grit,†“The Fighterâ€) that foretold restrained Oscar viewership. Indeed, one of the few contenders with a huge gross, “Toy Story 3†($415 million), was an animated film and therefore had no flesh-and-blood stars to root for.
“There was no set-’em-on-fire movie or star up for an Oscar,†said Paul Levinson, a professor and pop culture expert at Fordham University. “ ‘The King’s Speech’ is a superb movie, but it’s not going to be remembered as a movie that changed the course of cinematic history.â€
In recent years, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences has tried various tactics to boost viewership, including expanding the best-picture field and experimenting with hosts ranging from Jon Stewart to Chris Rock.
Sunday’s outing would seem to suggest that no matter who the hosts are, their power to shake up viewing patterns remains fairly limited. Jeffrey McCall, a media professor at DePauw University, argued that viewers are wearying of Hollywood self-congratulation and crude moments such as Melissa Leo’s blurting of an obscenity when winning for supporting actress (the language was bleeped out by ABC).
“The hosts last night were not that entertaining,†he wrote in an e-mail, “but the show wouldn’t have been saved even by better hosts.â€
RELATED:
Oscar ratings slip 7% as critics scorn hosts Anne Hathaway and James Franco
— Scott Collins (Twitter: @scottcollinsLAT)
