Why nobody wants to host the Oscars

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has announced that this year’s Oscars ceremony will go ahead without a host for the first time in 30 years.

The 2019 show will feature an array of celebrity presenters for individual awards, but no overall master of ceremonies, the academy has confirmed.

Organisers had reportedly struggled to replace stand-up Kevin Hart, who pulled out of the gig after a public backlash over old tweets in which he used homophobic slurs.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

The Oscar hosting gig is undoubtedly “one of the toughest in US show business”, says the BBC, requiring quick wits, impeccable comic delivery and the stamina to cope with intensive rehearsals for the hours-long extravaganza as well as the live broadcast itself.

However, it was also once one of the most prestigious, attracting comedic talents such as Billy Crystal, Steve Martin and Chris Rock at the height of their fame. So what’s changed?

The rot appears to have set in around 2004, says The Hollywood Reporter. Since then, only five hosts have returned for another turn in the hot-seat - a far cry from the days when “Johnny Carson hosted five times, Crystal nine and Bob Hope a swoon-inducing 19”.

Several high-profile flops have turned the gig into something of a poisoned chalice in the eyes of many performers.

Critics slammed the mismatched pairing of James Franco and Anne Hathaway at the 2011 ceremony, while Seth Macfarlane’s tawdry gags at the expense of female stars caught flack in 2013.

“I’m trying to think of the last time that I read a review of the Oscars the next day where everyone is raving about it,” Macfarlane reflected in a recent interview with Entertainment Weekly. “It’s been a long time.”

But, perhaps just as importantly, a stunning decline in viewership means that the rewards of hosting are simply no longer sufficient to balance out the blood, sweat and tears.

Last year’s ceremony attracted a US audience of 26.5 million, compared to the 43.7 million who tuned in as recently as 2014.

Combined with the relatively paltry fee on offer - Jimmy Kimmel claimed he was paid $15,000 (£11,570) to host the 2017 show - it makes sense that Hollywood A-listers are no longer queueing up for a chance at the gig.

This year will be only the sixth time the Oscars ceremony has gone ahead without an MC in its 90-year history. The most recent instance occurred at the 1989 ceremony, which The Atlantic terms a “legendary fiasco”.

The lack of an MC is not the only hosting controversy at this year’s Academy Awards.

Left without a big-name host, producers “are instead looking to recruit the biggest celebrities possible to dole out specific accolades”, says The Atlantic, spelling the end of a long-standing tradition whereby acting awards are handed out by the previous year’s winners.

In a now-deleted comment on Instagram, Allison Janney - who won a best supporting actress gong last year for her turn in I, Tonya - said the Academy’s decision “breaks [her] heart”.

“If the rumour is true, this would be just one of several unpopular decisions the Academy has made (and backtracked on) in pursuit of (much-needed) higher ratings,” says Vanity Fair.

Last year, organisers announced plans to create a new award for ‘best popular film’, prompting fierce blowback as critics denounced the move as pandering and incompatible with the Oscars’ status as a celebration of artistic merit. The plans were quickly cancelled.