TV

According to Nielsen Media Research, the audience for last night's broadcast was 14 percent smaller than the previous lowtide record set by the 2003 Oscars. It was down 21 percent from last year's show.

Nationally, the show had a 21.9 rating and 33 share. Locally, it was even worse -- an 18.6 rating and a 29.4 share, meaning that 453,000 households watched.

Such absymal numbers will prompt all kinds of blame-directing theories. Post-strike-stress syndrome is a likely culprite. The Academy should have had the good sense to recognize that it didn't have time the usual full-blown production and gone for a more scaled-back, Oscars Unplugged approach. But no.

And do you think maybe the low ratings were spurred in part by the fact that the Best Picture nominees -- with the exception of the one little movie (Juno) everyone was sure wouldn't win -- were a bunch of movies almost nobody had seen? After so long being ridiculed for placing commercial considerations above artistic achievement, the Oscars now seem to be all about "The Art" of films. And that's swell. But Super Bowl-sized audiences don't turn out for celebrations of "The Art."

Not to mention there was no compelling storyline running through last night's show, or the build-up to it -- again, except for the big-time triumph of little Juno. No crowning of a neglected king (a la Scorcese), no boundary-bashing breakthroughs (a la Brokeback Mountain) and no big-movie/mass-audience spectacle (a la Lord of the Rings). The best the Oscars could drum up was Daniel Day Lewis and the drinking of milkshakes and that can make for some funny YouTube videos, but that's not going to get people to tune in for three hours on a Sunday night.