Even with the inclusion of Hugh Jackman as the MC of this year's Academy Awards, critics are expecting even poorer ratings than last year. And that's pretty abysmal considering 2008's show was 14% less watched than 2007. In fact, ratings for Hollywood awards have been drastically slipping ever since Billy Crystal hosted in 1998 and people realized that a Titanic-sized win would never come back (although it did in 2004 with 11 wins for Lord of the Rings). So how can the Oscars juice up this year's award ceremony? Simple:

One word: Brangelina. This is the first year that both Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie have been nominated for awards, and while they might not be America's favorite couple (that would currently be Barack and Michelle), they are certainly one of the most highly visible and most talked about. Look, despite what you might think about Angelina playing Colors of Benetton in her backyard or selling her baby pics to tabloids highest bidder, the only reason you know the names of at least half of her children is that she is iconic, in part because of the scandal that surrounds her. Even though she won an Oscar for Girl Interrupted, it wasn't until 2004 and the narrative of "She stole Jen's man!" that Angelina became one of the top earning actresses in America, despite the fact that most critics thought the most she had going for her was her father's lips and a vial of Billy Bob's blood.

Meanwhile, Brad Pitt is getting a Best Actor nod for his role in Benjamin Button, which is fine. Brad Pitt is a great actor, the film is supposed to be pretty and all, but out of every role the heartthrob has ever played, are we really going to give him the accolades for this film? The only other time Pitt has been nominated for an Oscar was with his portrayal of the crazed Jeffrey Goines in 12 Monkeys, arguably his best role to date. Next to Goines and Tyler Durden, his stoic portrayal of Benjamin Button looks like it's closer on the spectrum to Meet Joe Black. And we all remember that movie (no one remembers that movie).

Jolie's getting her second nod nearly a decade later for her portrayal (again) of someone in a nut house. Was Angelina particularly great in Clint Eastwood's The Changeling? Meh. It could have been worse. But did she put in a more soulful performance than say, Kristin Scott Thomas in I've Loved You So Long, or Michelle Williams in Wendy and Lucy? No way.

But if the Academy learned anything from last year, or 2003 (which had the lowest ratings for the Oscars, ever), it's that America doesn't want to see dour art house films get awards or actors wining for the gravity of their performance. No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood may have been the greatest films that came out last year, but judging from box office receipts and Nielsen ratings, more people went to see Ocean's 13 than both of those films put together. We've already seen what America thinks of the high-brow shit. And to be fair, the Oscars should be more about the spectacle than about who wins. The history of cinema is rooted in a sideshow, which these two, with the tabloids covering their constant move, certainly bring to the table.

If the people in charge of the Oscars were smart this year, they would run their operation more like Us Weekly than a big SAG clusterfuck. People, GQ, Vogue, OK! and W. all benefited from a giant Brangelina boost, especially when coupled with a resurgence of Jennifer Aniston as the stiffed lover. If the Brangelina effect can do that to the ailing magazine industry, think about what it could do for an awards ceremony if the promotions started shifting away from the little gold statuettes and towards this duo and their controversial relationship.

Listen, I'm not saying it's the classiest idea Hollywood's ever come up with. But let's be honest with ourselves: If we could go back in time and give Mr. and Mrs. Smith one of those special "Innovation in Acting" awards for hooking up the most controversial contemporary Hollywood couple, we would. Who cares that the movie was a piece of shit?