..Gary Dretzka
..Noah Forrest
..Leonard Klady
..R.J. Matson
..David Poland
..Douglas Pratt
..Ray Pride
..Michael Wilmington

Unless they’re willing to announce very soon that Chris Rock will be retained as host of the 2006 Oscar ceremony, today is the day for ABC and the Motion Picture Academy to get over themselves and go back to the drawing boards. Typically, these sorts of decisions aren’t announced until the frost is on the pumpkin of red-state America, but concern over the continued erosion of overall viewers for the telecast could force some atypical strategies.

The good news for show producers came Monday, in learning that ratings were up from 2004, specifically among those in the demographic most prized by advertisers and studios: urbanites between 18-34. The really bad news arrived in a report from Nielsen Media Research, indicating that the 41.5 million homes that were tuned in Sunday represented a slide of 2 million from last year‘s overall total, or nearly 1.5 ratings points.

Again, in the category of bad and good news, the final accounting put Sunday’s show closer to the recent low of 33 million households, in 2003, than the all-time high of 55.2 million in 1998.

Seemingly, audiences are less interested in a good horse race (Million-Dollar Baby vs. The Aviator and Sideways, this year; Chicago vs. Gangs of New York and The Pianist, in 2003) than an overwhelming affirmation of their own middle-brow tastes (Titanic, in 1998; LOTR: The Return of the King, last year). These were all fine pictures, and, as usual, a large turnout of glamorous stars was guaranteed, so the giant shifts in viewers year-to-year must be worrisome to those who fret about such things.

Ostensibly, Rock was brought in this year to attract those young audiences who have tuned out since Titanic was launched, and fashion faux paux were the norm rather than the exception (actresses no longer promote personal taste, in fear of being dissed by some greasy couture cop). He is a comic admired by blacks and whites, alike, but far more for his stand-up routines than his less-than-memorable movies. Certainly, ABC’s good-news numbers are attributable to those fans who wanted to see Rock rip the stitches from the formalwear of full-of-themselves academy members. And, this he didn’t do nearly as viciously as was in his power.

In New York, the show garnered 40.2 rating/54 share during its primetime hours, up 24 from 2004. Other major cities showing impressive growth were Washington, D.C. (up 15 percent), Los Angeles (9 percent) and Detroit (7 percent). It will be interesting to see how those numbers held up throughout the evening, especially after it became apparent that Rock was self-censoring himself to avoid being bleeped unmercifully by network bluenoses.

Some of us would like to see Rock re-upped immediately, if only because he would have a year to establish his connection to the show and not have to participate in another oily publicity stunt engineered by Gil Cates and Matt Drudge. Bob Hope, Johnny Carson and Billy Crystal didn’t have to subject themselves to the indignity of being second-guessed, weeks before they told their first joke. Among the current rotation of hosts, Rock is the only one who can single-handedly deliver young, urban and minority viewers.

I wouldn’t be surprised, however, if ABC/AMPAS aren’t right now considering other similarly attractive, well-spoken and young-skewing TV personalities -- Will Ferrell, Tina Fey or Jon Stewart, for example -- for future hosting duties. All are funny, edgy and popular within the 18-34 demographic, but none is likely to incur the wrath of a Sean Penn or Jeremy Irons over the more abrasive moments in their monologues … and that, too, might be seen as a plus in the wake of Sunday‘s yawn-fest, however well it was staged technically.

Could these entertainers deliver “urban” audiences? Yes, if you mean the metrosexual and college crowds; no, if you’re interested in wooing African-Americans and other minorities.

Clearly, though, what needs to happen for the overwhelming commercial success of the 2006 Oscar-cast is the emergence of a movie -- a romance, preferably -- that manages to capture the imagination of very large cross-section of the international viewing audience. It would further need to win the respect -- if not the unanimous admiration -- of critics, and feature a cast of notable actors of all ages and ethnic backgrounds.

In other words, Gone With the Wind.

Within those parameters, Kid Rock or Donald Trump could host the show and still draw numbers like those generated during in 1998.

Absent a blockbuster hit, or two, it’s likely we’ll being having this same discussion again next year. So, why not give Rock another chance? In the long run, it simply doesn’t matter who’s hosting the show.

I assume Crystal was at the microphone the year Titanic was honored, but I can‘t remember. If he was, it didn’t leave a lasting impression on me. I can’t even recall last year’s emcee.

Fact is, no matter how much we all gripe about the Oscars, it isn’t the show that’s broken. Boring, maybe, but so are large stretches of everyday life.

Unlike the Golden Globes and Peoples’ Choice Awards, the Oscars are an institution … not merely TV shows. People would tune in if no one more formidable than Corey Feldman or Paris Hilton was there to stroll down the red carpet.

The media would be there, too. The media needs the Oscars a lot more than the Oscars need the media. All the content generated by the ceremony is free and can be used for years to come. Even the august New York Times enjoys wallowing in the mud of pop culture, when going downscale suits the needs of its advertising department.

No, it’s the Motion Picture Academy that’s broken, and the only people who care much about that are critics, cinephiles and fans of those movies and talents ignored by voters.

No one can justify the exclusion of Paul Giamatti from this year’s Best Actor bake-off, or Jim Carrey‘s, for that matter. The snub was, at once, inexcusable and inexplicable. Neither can anyone at AMPAS in good conscience take pride in the way finalists are chosen in the Foreign Language, Documentary and Best Song categories. And. each new year brings another new and increasingly unforgivable mistake on the part of niche nominators.

It would help, as well, if someone sat down and re-wrote the rules on what differentiates a lead actor from a supporting actor. That, or not let studios decide who goes in one category and not the other.

One explanation for the Golden Globes’ ability to remain a force during awards-season is a format that allows for the separate judging of comedies and dramas. It’s an audience-pleasing strategy that hurts no one, and rewards movies and actors who historically are ignored on Oscar night.

The Screen Actors Guild honors ensemble casts, as well as individual talent. It’s a concept that many viewers could embrace, if clearly defined and articulated to voters and fans.

Although such additions would go against the grain of AMPAS tradition, they likely would help achieve ratings success.

ABC might also be advised to hone a sharper edge on its pre-show, which defines the word, “square.”. Who were those people hosting the red-carpet show, anyway? A better idea would have been to hand the assignment to the cast of Desperate Housewives or Howie Long, Terry Bradshaw and Mike Ditka? Now, that would be fun to watch.

Why not consider staging it at Staples or the Rose Bowl, and sell tickets, like the Grammys do? Or, try pandering to the tastes of multiplex habitués, like those Rock interviewed at the Magic Johnson Theaters, by adding such categories as Best Picture to Gross Over $200 Million, Best Original Use of the F-Word, Best Rapper in a Comedy or Drama and the Jean Hersholt Award for Projectile Vomiting.

But, again, that’s only if the real problem with the annual event is perceived to lie in ratings, which is what I assume to be the case. The only reason to care about ratings, in the first place, is to justify the stratospheric licensing fees charged by AMPAS, one of the most smug and self-satisfied organizations on the planet. Making better movies would help take care of everyone’s concerns.

Otherwise, why sweat it? No one else is.

- by Gary Dretzka

March 1, 2005