With the nominations for the 96th Academy Awards having just been announced, I know that in a couple of months, I will face the same dilemma I do every year: do I watch it live or just wait and read the results on Wikipedia the next morning? Our brains are hardwired for efficiency and in a world of increasingly waning attention, I’ve been trained to look for ways to make everything happen in 30 seconds or less. Who has time for a multi-hour television broadcast?
An increasing number of people are facing the same dilemma and are choosing not to watch. There are multiple reasons people propose for why viewership is decreasing: an increasing number of legacy awards, lack of diversity, politicization, multiple embarrassing gaffs and scandals. I can see validity in a number of these explanations, but I’d like to hone in one that I’ve already mentioned: attention span.
I don’t expect any job offers from the Academy, but as someone who would like to have an easier time motivating myself to watch the Oscars every year, I’m gonna do a little armchair PR and propose some ways it can regain broad appeal in a world lacking in attention. I hope to create a version of the Oscars that is more entertaining and, most importantly, shorter.
Recommendation 1: Get Funnier Hosts
There are a number of reasons to look forward to the upcoming Oscars: I may see a Hayao Miyazaki film win Best Animated Feature in my lifetime, I’ll be rooting for Lily Gladstone to win Best Actress for her performance in “Killers of the Flower Moon” and Christoper Nolan may finally win an academy award. Despite all this, I’m left with just one question: who decided to let Jimmy Kimmel host again?
I’d like to apologize to any die-hard Jimmy Kimmel fans out there (I have yet to meet any of you in real life). It’s nothing personal, I promise. In all honesty, I don’t want to see any of the late-night talk show guys hosting the Oscars. They have a tough gig already, If I had to clock in every week doing their job, my eyes would probably glaze over while my expressions slowly lose any signs of genuine emotion too. Nonetheless, if I have to sit through three hours of Jimmy Kimmel making half-baked gibes at random attendees while we cut to them faking a laugh, I may simply have no choice but to turn the TV off. We’re gonna need to do better if we want to ramp up the entertainment value of the Oscars.
My first recommendation for the host of our new and improved Oscars ceremony is Conan O’Brien. You may feel lied to right now. I know I said no late-night talk show hosts, but Conan is retired so, on a technicality, I was completely honest with you. I don’t watch late-night talk shows but, in my mind, Conan is the gold standard. He’s sharp, charismatic, and knows how to build rapport. If we’re going for a funny host, these are key ingredients. Otherwise, most of the night is a guaranteed snooze fest right off the bat.
If we want to be a little less picky, we can also never go wrong with someone who is simply likable and knows how to talk in front of an audience. That’s why Hugh Jackman, someone who’s done the job before, is my second choice. He’s got rugged good looks with the personality of a supportive dad, he sings and he’s Australian. Who doesn’t want to tune in to that? If we want people’s attention locked onto their TVs instead of their phones, he might be the man for the job.
Recommendation 2: Cut Down on the Talking
Even if with a good host, it’s key that they know not to overstay their welcome. Live TV is far from an exact science and, to an extent, is uncontrollable. What is controllable, however, is how the long host talks which, time being the precious commodity it is, should be minimal (I considered requiring winners to sprint to the stage on this list but decided against it). While hosts play pivotal roles in providing a change of pace and ensuring the night runs smoothly, they need to do little more.
Similar restrictions should apply to presenters. In an event centered on celebrities, we don’t need more celebrities coming out every time the show moves onto a new award. The necessary introductions — and the obligatory attempt at stand-up between two people with optional on-stage chemistry — soak up time in an event that is already long and slow-paced.
Choosing a smaller pool of actors to present awards is the way to go. Each of them can announce multiple awards and, with fewer presenters, we can cut down on the number of introductions. We’re also implementing a strict no-joke policy for the presenters. Award winners have time limits on their speeches and it’s fair. Let’s also crack down on presenters and make them cut to the chase a little faster. More than ever, everyone needs to be a team player and not try to steal the spotlight.
Recommendation 3: Standardize the Order of Events to Maximize Suspense
Everyone in the film industry plays an important role in the magic of movie making but if you’re being honest, you probably aren’t getting into heated debates online about who will win Best Sound (Sorry to all sound designers. I had to work with audio on a student short film once and have never wanted to break my laptop more).
In my estimation, people care the most about the following categories: Best Supporting Actor/Actress, Best Actor/Actress, Best Director, and Best Picture. It should be standard practice to place all these categories toward the end of the show. The Oscars will air an hour later this year, so we need to capitalize on this change. More invested viewers can tune in for the whole event and everyone else can tune in later for what they care about. Then, we can all be in bed by a reasonable time. Maybe the key to getting people to watch a three-hour event is to make it so they don’t have to watch all three hours. Even then, the good parts will probably still run on too long, but this is the best we’re going to be able to do.
Ultimately, though, I’m not sure my recommendations (none of which would have unintended consequences I failed to consider, trust me) would work. We can cut down runtime all we want but an awards show will still be an awards show and in a world that favors increasingly short-form content, the Oscars have more of an uphill battle than ever.
Last year, I saw “Oppenheimer” and “Killers of the Flower Moon.” Both movies clocked in at over three hours and to be honest, there were times during both when I was bored. As I sat in the theater, though, there were also times when I was amazed, moved and reminded of why I love movies. When I watch the upcoming Oscars, in which both films I just mentioned are nominated for numerous awards, there will be times when I’m bored. Nevertheless, I may get to see a Miyazaki film win an award in my lifetime or see Christopher Nolan win for the first time or see Lily Gladstone win for one of my favorite performances from last year. Maybe the Oscars are only the Oscars if they’re somewhat of a drawn-out slog where, occasionally, something wonderful happens. I’ll be watching this year if only to engage with something that asks me to wait.