The Academy Awards are “the greatest masturbatory display of Hollywood's self-love,” according to Defamer’s Seth Abramovitch. He couldn’t be more right. The rich, famous and gorgeous are paraded into our homes, flaunting their million-dollar jewels to an audience comprised of folks eating TV dinners they bought from the nearby mice-infested supermarket.

These ostentatious displays of wealth amidst widespread layoffs and economic uncertainty are simply distasteful. In terms of lavishness, this year’s Oscars could go either way, says George Melnyk, a professor of film studies at the University of Calgary. He says the organizers might want to downplay the glamour to appeal to the public, though it’s equally possible they’ll “go the opposite direction and turn up the glitz” to provide an escape from people’s dire economic realities.

It’s not likely the Oscars will stoop to modesty. The awards spectacle acts to perpetuate the Hollywood machine as the world’s dominant cultural Caesar. The land of mythmakers finds its roots in the star system, explains Melnyk — where people derive value from celebrity culture, aspire to its heights and are therefore willing to spend money on films or anything attached to the movie industry.

Granted, the Oscars do provide some unforgettable cultural moments. Remember Bjork’s swan dress or Angelina Jolie’s full-on brother kiss? Best ever is Sally Field’s oft-mocked and oft-misquoted strident acceptance speech: “You like me. Right now, you like me!” However, given that a weekly reality show like American Idol easily pulls in 26 million viewers — only a little less than the far-more-expensive awards — Oscar’s in trouble. He knows it, too.

Comprised of over 5,000 members of the film industry’s cultural elite, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences might have a lot of critical cachet, but that elitism, along with an abundance of alternative new media, might just be accelerating its downfall. The highest rated Oscars ever, with 55 million viewers, came in 1998 when Titanic won Best Picture. In the past five years, ratings have numbered in the low 40s, dropping to 33 million in 2003 when Chicago won Best Picture. The lowest viewership yet occurred last year, when only 32 million viewers tuned in to see No Country for Old Men pick up the gold man. With no major blockbusters this year, the decline will no doubt continue.

“We live in a much more diverse, globalized media environment,” says Melnyk. “The Oscars think they represent the power of Hollywood to create celebrity images and to be at the forefront of entertainment — that’s not necessarily the case with the younger generation.”

Producers promise big changes at this year’s show. Likable film star Hugh Jackman (a.k.a. Wolverine) is host — his hunky, boy-next-door persona screams mass appeal. The Academy requested that presenters forgo the red carpet for an off-camera entrance. There have been whispers that all nominated songs will be incorporated into a single production number. They’ve even launched a large-scale multimedia ad campaign that includes the web, a sure sign of the Oscars’ growing realization that other entertainment sources are on television’s heels. Aside from these changes (most of which are just rumours), this year’s show is shrouded in secrecy. By all accounts, Oscar is hustling.

Though combined revenues of 2009’s Best Picture nominees (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon, Milk, The Reader, Slumdog Millionaire) total less than half of the revenues of the snubbed The Dark Knight, the competition holds the potential for Oscar-worthy theatrics. Slumdog the underdog takes on former frontrunner Benjamin Button for Best Picture. Mickey Rourke might be the comeback story of the decade if his portrayal of a washed-up wrestler wins the award for Best Actor. This year might be the year that Kate Winslet, the Susan Lucci of the Oscars, emerges victorious for her role in The Reader. Heath Ledger will likely win posthumously for his role as the Joker.

Are the tweaks to this year’s show enough to offset the cold wave that threatens to relegate the Academy Awards to the ice age? Melnyk thinks not. Changes in the media landscape are occurring so quickly that “these kinds of adjustments in the recipe are not significant whatsoever,” and the events will continue to lose ground regardless. Oscar, guess I’ll be seeing you, on YouTube.