Can Geoffrey Rush upset Christian Bale in Best Supporting Actor race? Pierre de Plume has the scoop in an extraordinary comparative analysis
by Pierre de Plume
This Year’s Oscar Race for Supporting Actor:
Comparing SAG and Oscar Winners
(and other factors)
Most people – even many film fans – would consider Oscar prognosticating to be a rather meaningless waste of time. A core of Oscar fans, however, become just a bit obsessed this time of year with many of the awards races. Always looking (and hoping) for a surprise win or upset to make Oscarwatching more interesting and fun, fervent fans enjoy dissecting the competition through statistics and anecdotal evidence.
Of the year’s acting races, the supporting categories appear more fluid. This article focuses on the supporting actor field, where Christian Bale (The Fighter) presumably holds the lead, primarily because of critical dominance and the SAG and Golden Globe awards he recently received.
Some prognosticators of late, however, have been suggesting a potential win for Geoffrey Rush (The King’s Speech), citing a recent groundswell of support for that film. Let’s take a look at the numbers and some of the anecdotal evidence that might conceivably support such a call, focusing primarily on what many consider to be the strongest pre-Oscar indicator in the acting races, the Screen Actors Guild (SAG) awards. Listed below are the SAG and Oscar winners for acting, including ensemble acting, for years these 2 awards didn’t match:
Won SAG Won Oscar
Meryl Streep (Doubt) Kate Winslet+ (The Reader)
Inglorious Basterds The Hurt Locker
Julie Christie (Away From Her) Marion Cotillard (La Vie en Rose)
Ruby Dee (American Gangster) Tilda Swinton (Michael Clayton)
Little Miss Sunshine The Departed
Eddie Murphy (Dreamgirls) Alan Arkin (Little Miss Sunshine)
Paul Giamatti (Cinderella Man) George Clooney (Syriana)
Sideways Million Dollar Baby
Johnny Depp (Pirates of the Carribean) Sean Penn (Mystic River)
Daniel Day Lewis (Gangs of New York) Adrien Brody (The Pianist)
Renee Zellweger (Chicago) Nicole Kidman (The Hours)
Christopher Walken (Catch Me If You Can) Chris Cooper (Adaptation)
Gosford Park A Beautiful Mind
Russell Crowe (A Beautiful Mind) Denzel Washington (Training Day)
Ian McKellen (Lord of the Rings) Jim Broadbent (Iris)
Helen Mirren (Gosford Park) Jennifer Connelly* (A Beautiful Mind)
Traffic Gladiator
Benicio del Toro§ (Traffic) Russell Crowe (Gladiator)
Albert Finney (Erin Brokovitch) Benicio del Toro+ (Traffic)
Judi Dench (Chocolat) Marcia Gay Harden* (Pollock)
Annette Bening (American Beauty) Hilary Swank (Boys Don’t Cry)
Robert Duvall (A Civil Action) James Coburn (Affliction)
Kathy Bates (Primary Colors) Judi Dench (Shakespeare in Love)
The Full Monty Titanic
The Birdcage¶ The English Patient
Lauren Bacall (The Mirror Has Two Faces) Juliette Binoche (The English Patient)
Apollo 13 Braveheart*
Ed Harris (Apollo 13) Kevin Spacey (The Usual Suspects)
Kate Winslet (Sense and Sensibility) Mira Sorvino (Mighty Aphrodite)
Jodie Foster (Nell) Jessica Lange (Blue Sky)
+Category confusion (won SAG supporting)
*Not nominated by SAG
§Category confusion (won Oscar supporting)
¶Not nominated for best picture Oscar
Results
1. When one includes in the tallies the SAG ensemble as correlative to the best picture Oscar, SAG and Oscar choices diverged 38% of the time.
2. When one excludes comparisons of the SAG ensemble/best picture Oscar and compares only the 4 acting categories, SAG and Oscar choices diverged 34% of the time.
3. Of the divergences, 2 involved category confusion (Kate Winslet and Benicio del Toro won the Oscar and SAG, but in different categories because of a lack of consensus regarding which category to place them in).
4. Of the acting divergences, 2 individuals won the Oscar but weren’t even nominated for the SAG (Jennifer Connelly, Marcia Gay Harden).
5. Of the SAG ensemble and best picture Oscar winners, 1 (The Birdcage) won SAG ensemble but wasn’t nominated for the best picture Oscar, and 1 (Braveheart) won the best picture Oscar but wasn’t nominated for SAG ensemble.
Discussion
Of the 22 divergences between SAG and Oscar winners in the 4 individual acting categories, 15 (68%) of the respective Oscar races can be said (some arguably) to have had no clear or detectable frontrunner:
Spacey (The Usual Suspects) vs. Harris (Apollo 13)
Harden (Pollock) vs. Dench (Chocolat)
Swank (Boys Don’t Cry) vs. Bening (American Beauty)
Coburn (Affliction) vs. Duvall (A Civil Action)
Dench (Shakespeare in Love) vs. Bates (Primary Colors)
Christie (Away From Her) vs. Cotillard (La Vie en Rose)
Swinton (Michael Clayton) vs. Dee (American Gangster)
Arkin (Little Miss Sunshine) vs. Murphy (Dreamgirls)
Cooper (Adaptation) vs. Walken (Catch Me If You Can)
Washington (Training Day) vs. Crowe (A Beautiful Mind)
Broadbent (Iris) vs. McKellen Lord of the Rigns)
Del Toro (Traffic) vs. Finney (Erin Brokovich)
Sorvino (Mighty Aphrodite) vs. Winslet (Sense and Sensibility)
Brody (The Pianist) vs. Daniel Day Lewis (Gangs of New York)
Dench (Shakespeare in Love) vs. Bates (Primary Colors)
Conversely, of the 22 divergences between SAG and Oscar winners in the individual acting categories, 7 (32%) of the respective Oscar races appeared to have a clear or detectable frontrunner:
Winslet (The Reader) vs. Streep (Doubt)
Lange (Blue Sky) vs. Foster (Nell)
Clooney (Syriana) vs. Giamatti (Cinderella Man)
Penn (Mystic River) vs. Depp (Pirates of the Caribbean)
Kidman (The Hours) vs. Zellweger (Chicago)
Connelly (A Beautiful Mind) vs. Mirren (Gosford Park)
Bacall (The Mirror Has Two Faces) vs. Binoche (The English Patient)
Of the 2 major Oscar upsets, 1 (Binoche) involved a race with a presumed frontrunner (Bacall), and 1 (Brody) involved a race where there was more than 1 frontrunner (Day Lewis, Nicholson).
Of the 22 divergent races where the Oscar winners emerged from a field having no clear frontrunner, 3 (27%) of the 11 victors in the supporting categories won for roles many say should have been competing in the lead category: Connelly, Harden, and Del Toro.
Of the divergences, only 1 Oscar winner (Coburn) can be considered to be a true sentimental choice.
In the 15 divergent races where the Oscar victor emerged from a field with no clear or detectable frontrunner, 4 (36%) of the winners appear to have been helped by performing in films the Academy appears to have favored: Dench (Shakespeare in Love) vs. Bates (Primary Colors), Cooper (Adaptation) vs. Walken (Catch Me If You Can), Brody (The Pianist) vs. Day Lewis (Gangs of New York), and Swinton (Michael Clayton) vs. Dee (American Gangster). Of these, Swinton beat Dee despite personal sentiment for veteran Dee.
Of the 22 divergent races, 4 of them (18%) can be said to have been characterized by negative factors not directly related to the actual performances: Arkin vs. Murphy, Washington vs. Crowe, Brody vs. Day Lewis, and Broadbent vs. McKellen. (McKellen’s loss can arguably be partially attributed to his publicized sexual orientation.)
Conclusions
In the 2011 supporting actor Oscar race, Christian Bale is the presumed frontrunner on the basis of his many critics awards, as well as wins from SAG, the Golden Globes, and the Broadcast Film Critics Association. In addition, his film (The Fighter) is a high-profile best picture nominee. Bale has never before been nominated for an Oscar.
Bale’s presumed primary competitor, Geoffrey Rush, is a more established veteran who already has won an Oscar in the lead category. Rush also has won several critics awards this year in competition with Bale. Rush’s film, The King’s Speech, received the most Oscar nominations (12) this year and has emerged as the new frontrunner for best picture on the basis of its PGA, DGA, and SAG ensemble wins. In addition, Rush is credited as a producer of the film because of his efforts in bringing the story to the screen.
Positives
Bale is generally well-regarded as a performer. He began acting as a youth, a factor that the Academy seems to take into consideration at times (e.g., Jeff Bridges, Sean Penn, Jodie Foster, Helen Hunt). His performance in The Fighter is largely viewed as a so-called standout, where he overshadows the lead (Wahlberg) and can be said to carry the film – a factor that often leads to an Oscar win even in a supporting category (e.g., Christopher Waltz, Heath Ledger, Javier Bardem, George Clooney, Martin Landau, Marisa Tomei). Bale is considered to be highly dedicated and extremely passionate about his work.
Rush is regarded highly in the industry and appears to be eloquent, gracious, and professional in his off-screen demeanor. His character, speech therapist Lionel Logue, is seen as a positive role model. Rush may be viewed as the sentimental favorite over Bale, while his film most certainly is seen as the sentimental favorite. In some ways his character is seen as a co-lead, a circumstance that has helped propel previous supporting nominees to Oscar victory (e.g., Benicio Del Toro, Tommy Lee Jones, Gene Hackman, Jennifer Connelly, Rachel Weisz, Marcia Gay Harden).
Negatives
Even though Bale’s character in The Fighter overcomes drug addiction, it’s permeated by role model negativity. Offscreen, Bale is known to be volatile as evidenced by a videotaped blowup on the set and also run-ins involving family and legal authorities. This factor may hurt his chances as similar circumstances are said to have negatively affected other Oscar outcomes (e.g., Russell Crowe, Eddie Murphy, Mickey Rourke). Some view Bale’s acting technique as excessive to a fault. His recent acceptance speeches reveal eccentricities and what some may consider lapses of judgment or even immaturity (e.g., delivering acceptances speeches in character, allowing his real-life counterpart in The Fighter, Dickie Ecklund, to share the SAG stage with him).
Rush appears to have no negative factors affecting his Oscar prospects other than a previous win (for Shine), which in some ways might even help his chances this time around.
Analysis
Although awards precursors point to a Bale win, the demographics of AMPAS suggest a possible upset by Rush: On many occasions the Academy choice has differed from the critical consensus, Golden Globe and SAG. These factors (discussed above) include sentiment, offscreen factors (both positive and negative), and surging momentum for a film that creates a favorable coattail effect (e.g., Binoche, Morgan Freeman, Dench, Del Toro, Brenda Fricker). It’s reasonable to suggest that, because of Academy demographics, its voters hold Bale in sufficiently different regard than critics and SAG voters to push Rush ahead of Bale in the final Oscar tally. Bale’s brand of professionalism, for example, may not be as appreciated by AMPAS voters as it apparently is by film critics, the HFPA, or SAG. The Academy’s seemingly snowballing love for The King’s Speech – combined with regard for Rush as an actor, producer, and gracious competitor – suggest a trend that could favor Rush at the final outcome.
Since Rush cannot be reasonably viewed as the Oscar frontrunner at this point, one must first look to the exceptions (divergences) discussed above to offer any kind of informed prediction: Winslet’s Oscar victory appears to have no relevance to the competition between Bale and Rush because her win not only involved category confusion but also reflects a palpable momentum at the time to award her an Oscar as an “overdue” recipient. Likewise, Lange’s second Oscar appears to have occurred in part through default given Foster’s 2 previous wins. Clooney appears to have won largely because of his prominence and popularity. Kidman appears to have beat Zellweger because she was seen as more “overdue” despite the greater strength, Oscarwise, of Chicago as a film. Penn beat Depp presumably because Depp’s SAG win was viewed as an aberration.
The remaining 2 of the 7 divergencies, then – Connelly/Mirren, and Bacall/Binoche – seem to be the more relevant in analyzing this year’s supporting actor race. But that’s not much data to go on, so let’s consider some other, albeit more subjective factors.
A victory for Geoffrey Rush on Oscar night 2011 might be correlative to some anecdotal evidence from past races, such as Katharine Hepburn’s victory for On Golden Pond when she beat Meryl Streep’s performance in The French Lieutenant’s Woman. Because SAG hadn’t established its awards that far back, statistical comparisons for these 2 races aren’t applicable. However, acclaim at the time for Streep’s performance included awards such as the Golden Globe, the BAFTA, and the Los Angeles Film Critics. Nonetheless, it also is said that a coattail effect arising from Henry Fonda’s popular best actor victory, not to mention the upbeat tone of On Golden Pond, helped seal the deal for Hepburn’s fourth (and final) Oscar.
Beyond the possible “On Golden Pond” effect just described, one can see similarities between the Bale/Rush race and Alan Arkin’s surprising, last-minute surge to victory over Eddie Murphy, where positive factors favoring Arkin (a long and distinguished career, popularity of his film) trumped potentially damaging factors for Eddie Murphy (negative buz for offscreen behavior). Other similar comparisons include the race where Robin Williams (good career, popularity of film) beat Burt Reynolds (his diminished popularity and the controversial nature of his film, Boogie Nights), as well as when Judi Dench (high professional regard, momentum of her film) beat Lynn Redgrave (ill-timed, sordid publicity regarding the acrimonious breakup of her marriage).
All factors considered, if Rush does indeed take home an Oscar this year, he clearly will be doing so in defiance of the measurable odds. Anyone who bets on his chances will be betting for a rare upset, a “perfect storm” if you will that exists only as a hunch – unless one is privy to enough Academy buzz to make an informed guess.
There’s one factor we haven’t talked about yet – and it makes a win for Rush feel more palpable: The King’s Speech has defied the statistical odds by leapfrogging, over the course of just 1 week, to frontrunner status. Until late January, the film to beat was Fincher’s The Social Network, which has garnered near unanimous critical acclaim and also the Critics Choice and Golden Globe awards. That dominance was shattered, however, when The King’s Speech took the PGA, DGA, and SAG ensemble.
As the logic goes: If Rush’s film can defy the odds, why too can’t Rush ride the wave?
In the end, this is what makes the usually predictable Oscarcast bearable and — if we’re lucky — exciting enough to glue onself to the TV for the 3-plus hours it takes to hand out all those shiny statuettes.
I’m not quite ready to predict a surprise win for Geoffrey Rush, but stay tuned
This is the Mother of all statistical breakdowns. I admire Mr. de Plume’s incredible knowledge and understand of the studio politics that could turn a race ordiginally thought to be a lock. I wouldn’t have originally thought that Rush had any kind of a chance, but then again who would have figured this late charge by The King’s Speech that has apparently sealed the fate of The Social Network. I have heard that Bale is very unpopular, and even though Rush has won before, he is playing a very popular part in a film that has captured everyone’s imagination.
Thanks for the compliment, Frank. The extent of Bale’s popularity within the Academy is difficult to gauge. I’d guess he’s more popular with younger AMPAS voters and that voters in the non-acting branches (e.g., technicians, producers, publicists) tend to be less tolerant of what some may view as Bale’s offscreen antics.
I think the anecdotal evidence is even more convincing than the numerical precedence. Records are always meant to be broken. The meltdown of The Social network is a case in point. Has it ever happened that a film wins all those critics’ awards and then get’s shut down in the end? Bale did win the SAG, and the same people are voting on the Oscars. I am thinking he may hang on.
Ricky, you seem to be correct that the anecdotal evidence here is more powerful than objective analysis. AMPAS regularly establishes precedent by breaking away from established patterns. (Who would’ve thought that No Country For Old Men could win best picture?) In answer to your question, no film in the history of the Academy Awards has received such broad critical acclaim and not gone on to win the Oscar for best picture. The closest comparison is Brokeback Mountain’s loss to Crash, which did receive a smattering of best picture awards from critics but nowhere near the track record that The Social Network amassed until just a week ago.
Regarding Bale’s SAG win as predictive of an Oscar win: My observation is that SAG (a much larger body than AMPAS) skews much younger than those who vote for Oscars. Many SAG members are relative newcomers to the business and rely on outside sources to supplement their incomes. Their views on what’s “best” can often diverge from the opinions of those in the Academy, whose members skew older, more trained, and more experienced. And don’t forget, even though the Academy’s actors comprise the largest branch of that body, this group merely nominates its candidates. The winner is voted upon by the entire Academy membership, which includes technicians, publicists, assistant directors, etc., many of whom may not share such a romantic view of Bale as a bunch of starry-eyed SAG members. I’m just sayin’.
Thanks for the further clarification Pierre. I was thinking that the SAG was an actively younger crowd. Back in the year of Brokeback, it was publicized that Ernest Borgnine was influential with the AMPAS membership, but less influential with SAG. So it makes sense what you are saying.
The British film academy awards (BAFTAs) are this weekend. We might get a bit of a clue from that group. If Bale wins, that’s certainly a good sign for an Oscar win. If Rush wins, that’ll give an indication that British Oscar voters, a significant demographic, might be tilting toward him — thus adding to the suspense.
I buy it Pierre. I really do. I have long been aware of Bale’s personality shortcomings and there’s a swing towards THE KING’S SPEECH across teh board. Rush has one, yes, but he’s playing a vital character in a film that everyone loves. It would almost seem anti-climactic to give the award to First and bypass Rush. It’s seems one needed the other. The SAG award for Bale does seem to mean something though, as the actor’s branch has far more members that all the others. But I feel that had to be a very close vote.
You have authored an extraordinary analysis, and one that all the others must stand behind!
Thanks, Sam. And yes, I think that Firth and Rush are this year’s onscreen couple. One cannot think of Firth’s exemplary performance without also remembering Rush.
But I’m still reticent about calling Rush. Academy members may feel the need to acknowledge The Fighter in some way. I for one feel that Melissa Leo will not win the Oscar, with Hailee Steinfeld’s equally strong but more sentimental portrayal will prevail. The Fighter’s best chance for Academy recognition is Bale. For that film to go home empty-handed is difficult to imagine; if that does indeed happen, the post-Oscar, Monday-morning quarterbacking will make hay over The Fighter’s smackdown.
Thanks, Pierre, for providing this outsider with a fascinating glimpse of what goes on at the marketing end of filmmaking.
This was a extremely well documented research on Oscar chances, and I loved the trip down memory lane (I called Arkin that 2007).
I have a personal thing to say about the performances this year, while I dont remember the other nominees, Rush surpasses Bale, on my eyes, but still they have one thing in common: the movies would have been unbearable without them.
The hell with Rush and Bale, John Hawkes’ role is superior to both of them lol. Pierre de Plume’s magnificent breakdown of Oscar politics proves why you can’t judge art correctly by wins and losses. In a baseball game (as an example) two teams play and the better team deservedly wins. With the Oscars its all about all these other extraneous reasons that have nothing to do with the actual movie. It proves the obvious meaningless of award shows. Who cares if Bale is an asshole? If he has the best role of the year than he should win. Yet how can you decide who actually has the superior part. There is no perfect formula so outside factors play a prominent function. I say put them in a coliseum with a lion and see who survives the longest. Or let them compete in a foot race with the golden statue waiting at the finish line to be snapped up by the victor. Better yet since Rush is so old they can play a game of bingo to make the eventual winner seem even more trivial.
If I were in a position to vote, Maurizio, I’d go with Hawkes — though I feel Rush did a great job and created a memorable portrayal. It’s so true: you can’t judge art by wins and losses. You baseball analogy makes a good point, though I’d add that luck — both good and bad — and other factors exert a significant amount of effect on the baseball diamond, as well.
You’re certainly right in saying that outside factors play a prominent function. So much of what constitutes a well-regarded performance is beyond the actor’s control, especially in film. First you have to get the right role and good writing. Then there’s the director, the camera, the lighting, the editor and beyond, all affecting what ends up onscreen and how it’s perceived.
I wouldn’t say that awards shows are meaningless, however (though I agree with you in the sense I believe you intended). A body such as AMPAS does have a certain power that affects, in one way or another, what we do, what we think, and how we live.
Thank you for the crafting a post with such pleasing clarity and precision – both in form and content. I’ve not followed this year’s race closely but now the outcome of this category will hold additional intrigue for me. I always marvel at your erudition Pierre.
That’s a special compliment coming as it does from you, sartre.
Thanks, Jim and Jaime, for your comments, and congrads to Jaime for calling Arkin. (That race was a nailbiter, and I don’t imagine the release of “Norbit” during the ballotting period did Murphy any favors).
Maurizio’s stated preference for John Hawkes’s performance led me to remember a factor I’d forgotten to add: I suspect the presence of Hawkes — a nomination that was anything but certain — could drain votes from Bale, thereby making it easier for Rush to win. As a younger nominee and by having appeared in a relatively uncommercial (“anti-Hollywood”) film, Hawkes presents a powerful, compelling and transformative portrait that competes directly with the demographic that otherwise might go along with Bale. For example, If Matt Damon (True Grit) had been nominated by the actor’s branch instead of Hawkes, Damon probably would not be viewed by AMPAS voters as a whole as a strong candidate. But because the little-seen Winter’s Bone gained prominence through its acting and writing nominations, more voters outside the actors branch may see Hawkes’s performance and vote for him. My determination as to why these fluid votes would go to Rush instead of Bale seems to reflect that Bale and Hawkes are closer in age and acting style and that they appear in regional, American films as opposed to the older, more classically perceived Rush.
Pierre this is just an incredible stat breakdown. As you mention, things indeed seem to have shifted in the last few weeks. If the awards were held back in January, then I would have placed Rush behind Bale but now it seems The King’s Speech is the front-runner film so Rush would be more favoured. At the end of December, it seemed The Social Network was a shoe-in for best picture but not so much anymore.
Thanks, sachin. You’re right: As far as timing goes, things are turning out splendidly for The King’s Speech. Although the film may or may not achieve a major sweep at the Oscars, I think the Weinstein Company campaigns with such acumen that Rush, competing in a major category, would be one of the most likely beneficiaries of straight-ticket voting.
Well, whether the Oscars are “important’ or not makes little difference to a prognosticator and the fact is that Oscar is FUN. I’ve been prognosticating since I was a kid and had first fell in love with the glamour and the glitz of the whole event. Then, of course, I began to really study and see film and I suddenly saw the Oscars in a new way, not very important but easier to guess because I was doing the watching and seeing more and more films.
Pierre has done an absolutely fascinating job here and I must say that he makes a hard case with his finite details in the pros and cons section.
Personally, I think Bale will, ultimately prevail…
This, I feel is based on the facts that the groundswell for THE KINGS SPEECH has gotten so big and almost assured itself a PICTURE< DIRECTOR, SCREENPLAY and LEAD ACTOR win that the Academy will wanna break up the rest of the acting categories for other films.
Frankly, since the swell became so pronounced, I feel that there will be very little in surprizes (although I think one will come in the acting but just not where we'll expect it-sorry, but I'm still thinking this is Bening's year) and THE KINGS SPEECH will win the lions share of the major pizes. BALE will, in my estimation, take the Supporting Actor prize as Rush has already won the Oscar previously (BEST ACTOR-SHINE-1996) and because BALE not only gave a terrific performance but seems to the Academy to be owed one now that he's one of the most sought after young actors out there.
This was a truly awesome post by Pierre and I'm really hoping he is going to knock out a post for each of the major categories before the big night!!!!!!
Dennis, I’ve also responded to your thoughtful analysis in a comment below.
As far as additional pieces on the race, I’m thinking about doing one on supporting actress — a juicy topic this year and one where I feel more strongly than upset (Steinfeld) will occur. I’d be happy with that but am still lamenting the lack of attention the wonderful Amy Adams has received for her great work (in my opinion) in The Fighter.
Of course, there is the “coupling factor” and this is something that I have believed in for many years…
The “coupling factor” is when one actor gives a responsive performance to another great performance within the same film. I have seen this happen time and again tyhroug Oscar history and sometimes, I just cannot argue against it. The most telling moment in the “coupling factor” was in 1993 when little Anna Paquin (all of 9 years old when she made THE PIANO) Oscared because her co-star Holly Hunter would not have been able to deliver the same Oscar winning performance she gave as the mute Ada in Jane Campion’s THE PIANO. Literally, one cannot work without the other and the performances almost become symbiotic in a sense, like their playing each lobe of a two sided brain. If Hunter wins then so should Paquin and vice versa. This can also be seen with Jack Nicholson and Louise Fletcher in ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO’S NEST (or Jack and Shirley MacLaine in TERMS OF ENDEARMENT or Jack and Helen Hunt in AS GOOD AS IT GETS-all Oscared with the “coupling factor”), Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins in THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS and Jane Fonda and Jon Voight in COMING HOME and Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep as adversaries in KRAMER VS KRAMER.
The Academy may, indeed, put the “coupling factor” into major cosideration with Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush for THE KINGS SEETCH as most critics and fans of the film have spoken of that almost symbiotic quality they exude in their film. Frankly, I would love to see Rush take it as I have been enamoured with his work since his titanic performance as the mentally disturbed calssical pianist, David Helfgott, in Scott Hicks mesmerizing SHINE….
An amazing look into what is going on behind the scenes by someone who obviously knows his stuff! I’d prefer to see Rush win the prize, and hope all of this pans out. But the Screen Actors Guild award for Bale is still making me think he’s the favorite. But with all the others branches involved in the voting it might still tilt as you suggest.
I agree with Dennis that Benning will win in an upset.
If they would take my action, I’d still hang with Bale. Did I say ‘hang’? Well, the Academy has been known to go full force behind one film, so Rush is a strong possibility. But I’m thinking along the lines that they will feel they are giving The King’s Speech enough. I agree with other posters that this is the analysis to end all others. Kudos to you Sir.
Thanks, Frederick. The smart money right now is on Bale. Betting on hunches — which is what a Rush call would be — is risky business
But I’m keeping my ear to the rumor mill.
Thanks, Dennis and Karen, for the kind words!
Dennis, your mention of the “coupling” factor (I call it the “On Golden Pond” effect) provides many additional examples of how Rush may be perceived as a preferable choice to Academy voters. Your discussion indicates a true knowledge of how the mind of an AMPAS member might indeed work.
Although I believe a surprise will emerge in the acting categories, my feeling is that it will be Hailee Steinfeld if anyone at all. (Usually it’s just one category with an unexpected result — the Academy doesn’t usually play fruit-basket upset.) Bening’s role is rather understated as opposed to the flashier Portman role. And, finally, there’s the “babe” rule: When in doubt, predict the younger of the two most likely nominees; veteran actresses may win sometimes, but not 2 years in a row. (Ageism is still alive — at least with respect to females — and this unofficial Academy “rule” worked in the Christie/Cotillard race.)
If I were obliged to predict right now, it would be Firth, Portman, Bale and Steinfeld. But as you probably know, it’s such a great feeling to appear smart to others in your Oscar pool. (Remember how Roger Ebert gloated when he foresaw Marisa Tomei’s jolting victory?)
While The Fighter was a rather formulaic unspectacular film, Bale was very convincing as an addict. He chewed up the scenery a little to get a nomination, but was effective at portraying someone in the throes of drug addiction. His acting was realistic and, unlike Nicole Kidman’s laughable feeble attempt at being high in Eyes Wide Shut, pulled it off with flying colors.
Maurizio, that’s a fine assessment of Bale’s work in The Fighter.
(Personally, I hold David O. Russell responsible, as director, for the problems I see in that film. I don’t believe one can dismiss the film in its entirety, of course. That said, the director usually sets the tone on a set, and I’m thinking that something went on there to skew things in a direction I’ll call overly indulgent.)
I like the figuring behind Hawkes ‘draining votes’ from Bale, and both these performances would seem to appeal to the same kind of progressive voters, leaving the traditionalists to rally behind Rush. Ordinarily I’d add in the ‘British factor,’ which takes into account the large membership in the Academy who are Brits, but Bale is also English. Mind you, there is nothing wrong with traditionalist voting, at least not here, as by any barometer of measurement Rush turned in a superlative performance.
It may be telling too that this is Bale’s first nomination in the course of a distinguished career. This may be the ultimate testament to hislack of popularity on a personal level.
Sam, I suspect the British factor you mention still can be of some benefit to Rush because, as opposed to Bale, he played an Australian character residing in England and also because his film was produced in England.
Regarding Bale’s popularity, I can’t say for sure. It seems reasonable to suggest that he’s more popular with actors than among other professions within the industry mainstream.
And just to emphasize: Bale remains the frontrunner. The stats support this and will continue to do so. A little more time needs to pass in the coming weeks — things may happen to change the dynamic, or industry insiders might receive news to share on any breaking trend. Those tips, however, are only as reliable as the person reporting them. The better pundits (those who succeed the most at being informed and objective) include Sasha Stone (Awards Daily), Dave Karger (Entertainment Weekly), and Kris Tapley (In Contention).
Bale seems to be a very intense, private and sometimes aloof guy. That may well be read as arrogance by many as arrogance. There was an episode years ago where there was some violence or threats involving his mother and sister as I recall.
Mr. de Plume, are there any other scenarios where the award could go to one of the other three actors nominated in the event of an acute split between Bale and Rush? Or would this be impossible?
Awesome focus on this award, I must say!
That’s a fair question, Peter. I don’t see any of the other 3 nominees factoring in as potential winners. Even if Bale and Rush were to virtually tie, I don’t see any remaining nominee coming close to either of them as a first choice:
Jeremy Renner’s stock as a major player skyrocketed last year with The Hurt Locker, and I’m sure we’ll be seeing more of him. The fact that The Town didn’t get enough support for a best picture nomination seems to translate into no chance of winning — this year, at least. And to my way of thinking, the writing didn’t give his character enough shades.
Ruffalo’s performance was one of the most refreshing things about The Kids Are All Right, but because his distinctive persona never seems to vary much, I suspect too many non-actor voters assume he was pretty much playing himself. His work may be headed in the right direction, but he’ll need a juicier role and be seen working harder — or suffering more — if he ever expects to win an Oscar.
Hawkes could be viewed as the likeliest longshot, but it would be an enormous shock to see him win. The film probably has a strong core following, which helped it get 4 nominations (picture, screenplay, actress, supporting actor). But its regional setting and style are probably too stark to cross over from its perception as an “indie,” even if its a very good one. His performance, which I thought was better than that of Jennifer Lawrence, may fare better at the Spirit Awards.
Superb research and analysis, Don. Seriously, whatever bee got into your bonnet that day must have been junked up on some major caffeine. SAG’s not nearly as reliable an indicator of who takes home Oscar as some people make it out to be. At least I’m telling myself that, since I really want Hailee to win over that godawful performance by Melissa Leo.
As for supporting actor, Bale deserves one for other work, even if I was underwhelmed by the Dickie performance. Rush is reliably good and I wouldn’t be upset if he won for TKS; it IS a huge part of the film’s success and appeal. Oddly, I recall thinking that when he DID win it was for another one of those too-overtly actorly performances in Shine. I haven’t seen it since then, but remember being exasperated with it at the time.
It annoys me that Bale’s overshining Wahlberg in the awards circuit the same way his character outshone his more-deserving brother in the film. My problem with Wahlberg in the film was only that he didn’t seem to be from the same gene pool as the other white trash cretins and never seems to like or enjoy them other than some misguided adoration for Dickie and I could therefore find no reason to sympathize with him sticking by them when he could have gotten the hell away from them (unlike me, who was stuck in the theater).
Personally, I’m rooting for John Hawkes, though he doesn’t have a chance. I watched White Heat over the weekend (so good), and a couple of times I was struck by how much a certain glance or menacing grimace by Cagney would remind me of Jeremy Renner in The Town. I wonder if that was a conscious thing, or if anyone else would think that.
Who’s Don?
Jennifer, I agree that the perception of SAG’s influence on Academy voting isn’t as reliable as some may believe. I think that stems from the fact that the actors branch of the Academy is by far the largest and that, therefore, the actors’ collective opinion carries more weight in the result. What people seem to not realize, though, is that SAG has thousands and thousands of members but that the actors branch of the Academy is very exclusive and, on average, older, more experienced, and wealthier. The 2 demographics don’t approximate each other in many ways.
You’ll get no arguments from me about Hailee winning (though I’m a bit wistful about Amy Adams, who by now can be considered “overdue” and surely is headed for her big moment sometime soon). The Oscar “script” for Steinfeld, though, reads “A Star Is Born,” with “Only 14 Years Old” as the eyebrow headline. How can AMPAS possibly ignore that? I mean, they’ve already shown they love the film — it got 10 nominations, for Pete’s sake).
Also, I agree with your supporting actor comments. At the time of Rush’s win for Shine, I felt that his Oscar was much ado over the story behind the real-life character. Rush is a wonderful actor but he simply lucked out with that part, which often is the case, Oscarwise, when you think about it.
Your summation of the Wahlberg/Bale thing is right on. Some might argue that Bale’s character is supposed to overshadow Wahlberg’s — and that’s true, but the contrast between the 2 characters is a different thing entirely. You’re so right about the disconnect between Wahlberg and the rest of the family. I blame most of it, including Leo’s overreaching, on David O. Russell. (But I loved her in Frozen River.)
Well I disagree tenfold on Rush and SHINE. Looking back at the nominees for BESTR ACTOR in 1996, the only other competitor that even came close to trumping Rush was Billy Bob Thornton as the mentally challenged, forced upon murderer in SLING BLADE. The characterization was subtle, brilliant and disturbing. However, where Thornton was all that, Rush’s interpretation of the mentally damaged David Helfgott in SHINE was subtle, brilliant, disturbing AND life affirming as well.
See, there’s the key, LIFE AFFIRMING.
There really wasn’t anyone else in the field that year to displace either of these two gentlemen (Tom Cruise trying TOO hard in JERRY MAGUIRE, the too-little-too late emotion of Ralph Fiennes in the largely forgotten THE ENGLISH PATIENT and the IMPERSONATION that Woody Harrelson gave in THE PEOPLE VERSUS LARRY FLYNT).
No, the Academy got it right and gave the Oscar to the better of the two front runners. Rush is, amongst other things in his performance, damn near perfect in exuding the pent up emotion that he has been bottling up all his life in SHINE.
To be honest though…
The Academy did miss the ball.
Although he has only about 50 minutes worth of screen time in the film, the LEAD performance of the year 1996 that was performed by an actor was one the Academy relegated to Supporting actor status. Without question, the Oscar in the lead category, as well as just displacing somebody like Harrelson or Cruise for the nomination, should have gone to the wonderfully nervous and extremely quilty little weasal that was WILLIAM H. MACY in FARGO. From scene 1 he holds the audience captive with a performance that is a text book example of greedy desperation. The Academy nominated and awarded his costar, Frances McDormand, as BEST ACTRESS for a role that saw even less screen time than Macy’s character did and that kind of pass should have fell Macy’s way as well. His performance is long remembered as a classic when Rush’s and Thornton’s are almost long forgotten except by people like us that have obsessive encycleopedic knowledge on every movie known to man.
Flat out, William H. Macy was the best MALE actor of 1996.
“LIFE AFFIRMING”
Dennis, you hit the nail on the head. AMPAS often falls for this type of character (or film) unless, of course, there exists a performance they can’t ignore (e.g., Daniel Day Lewis in There Will Be Blood).
And I’ve been wondering how long it would be before someone challenged opinions expressed here on Rush’s work in Shine. I agree he was the obvious choice to win that year of those nominated. I also think he was good in the role. What I didn’t clarify so well is that there was a lot of hoopla over the character he played that had as much to do with his win as the performance itself. This type of character seems to regularly get extra points come Oscar time (Hoffman in Rain Man is another good example.)
And yes, Macy was particularly good that year and his category placement I recall being discussed at the time. But there was no way he was going to win, as you quite possibly realize, because of the nature of the character. Macy is not a leading-man type, he’s a character actor. As I recall, he has collected a lead actor award or two since then but for roles that are character parts.
Thanks for your additional comment!
And Dennis, I forgot to add — AMPAS found a way to reward Billy Bob Thornton by giving him the screenplay Oscar. That worked out nicely for everyone involved. (And of course you remember that his award was helped along by earnest support from Elizabeth Taylor.)
As far as Hailee Steinfeld being an upset, I say look again.
The fact is, Melissa Leo and Amy Adams BOTH nominated for the SAME film in the category of BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS and this, as seen before, almost damns their chances duie to a cancelling out. Had Leo or Adams nominated ALONE in the category they would almost, assuredly have won this thing in a landslide. However, the cancelling out will occur and newcomer Steinfeld will kareen up the middle of their battle with each other to land safely in the winnners circle.
Another thing. As Steinfeld is the youngest nominee here in all the races, and considering that the Academy loves to award “fresh flesh” Steinfelds win will, in my opinion satiate the Academy’s thirst for youth and then give veteran Annette Bening the legs to beat the pants on the over-blown blown performance of Natalie Portman in BLACK SWAN.
I’ve said it time and again. When 99% of the Awards are accounted for, the Academy will run for a surprize. The surprize is NOT STEINFELD beating LEO and ADAMS, she won this thing the moment Adams and Leo were nominated together. The surprize is NOT Rush over Bale as this race really can go only two ways and no other. The surprize WILL be Bening for ACTRESS IN A LEAD ROLE for THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT.
Besides, the Academy wouldn’t wanna instigate labor on a very pregnant Portman.
Dennis, if Melissa Leo hadn’t been nominated, the prospects for Adams surely would’ve been better, although the “cancel each other out rule” has been overcome on occasion when one role or performance overshadows another in the same film/category, e.g., Zeta-Jones). I acknowledge, though, that the presence of Leo and Adams helps Steinfeld’s chances.
Either way, I’ve always felt Steinfeld had a strong chance of winning because she “fits the bill” in terms of the Academy’s unspoken criteria — not the list of which is a soft spot for performances by children. In the case of Steinfeld, her character is a child on the cusp of womanhood, which I think enhances her appeal.
The other, more recent development that may help Steinfeld (unfortunately, I think) is the late-breaking flap over Melissa Leo’s self-funded ad in which she appears “glammed up” with the caption, “Consider Me.” And even more significantly, she gave a couple of interviews where she cricitized her studio, Paramount, for its publicity campaign. Since then, Paramount pulled its ads, which featured both her and Bale, and replaced them with an ad for Bale alone. Leo has a lot to learn about the Hollywood star machine. And this may hurt her and help Steinfeld.
I consider Adams to be the dark horse now. And actually, I’d be happy to see her win on the basis of performance, though Steinfeld deserves it too for such a strong debut.
I think the problem here is that most of us are see Hailee Steinfeld as the BIG SURPRIZE. In reality, Steinfeld was the front-runner for the BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS award the moment M’Onique announced her name at the nominations ceremony. Very rarely will the Academy award one actor when a dual nomination for the same film occurs (here we have BOTH Melissa Leo and Amy Adams nominated for THE FIGHTER). Only in the EXTREME case will the Academy break the “cancelling out” rule (in the case of Catherine Zeta-Jones besting Queen Latifah in this same category for their work in 2002′s CHICAGO it was a case of Zeta-Jones performance really being miles ahead of Latifah’s, Latifah being filler in a category that ran out of steam after the first two or three slots had been filled and that Zeta-Jones husband, former BEST ACTOR winner Micheal Douglas has tons of power and influence amongst the Academy voters. In the case of Peter Finch besting co-nominee William Holden for 1976′s NETWORK; that was a case of pure sentimentality as Finch had died just prior to the Oscar ceremony and feelings of loss were running rampant through Hollywood. Also, the Academy likes a dramatic show to boost ratings and having a posthemous award handed to Finch’s greiving wife would certainly, should she show up, glue a bigger audience to the screen. Also, the Academy really didn’t know where to go with that category anyway as they knew they wouldn’t feel right about bringing the BEST of the five nominees, Robert DeNiro for his harrowingly chilling portrayal as the psychotic Viet-Nam vet in TAXI DRIVER, to the podium. Often, ratings and “safe” bets determine the winning result).
Steinfeld is young, her performance is a “break-out” and she allows the Academy to break the tie between Leo and Adams.
I really think you are all missing the obvious when it comes to surprizes this year. The Rush win is not a surprize in the least should he prevail over Bale, their run for the winners circle is, in my opinion anyway, a neck and neck race and either capturing the little gold man would not be seen as a shock but as an expected as is Firth with his expected landslide win for THE KINGS SPEETCH.
Where I think you are all making the mistake, is that in a year where almost every award is accounted for (the screenplays will be won by THE SOCIAL NETWORK and THE KINGS SPEETCH, the DIRECTOR and PICTURE prizes WILL be won by either THE SOCIAL NETWORK or THE KINGS SPEETCH), the Academy MUST throw in a surprize in a major category (last year the surprize was PRECIOUS for best ADAPTED SCREENPLAY, a major category for fans of Oscar and true film buffs). Knowing that a surprize is a FACT in a predictable year, and this year is as pedictable as any, the SURPRIZE will come in BET ACTRESS and Annette Bening, three time loser and married to HOLLYWOOD ROYALTY will PROBABLY destroy her competitor Natalie Portman in BLACK SWAN.
Also, take in to account Pierre’s own fguring here and the fact is that Portman’s performance is anything but life affirming or feel good (she playing a mentally disturbed, paranoid psychotic), not an overwhelming masterpiece performance (like Daniel Day-Lewis WAS for THERE WILL BE BLOOD), comes from a film that has the less attention from the Academy than some of the others films, and that there has been many, both in the Hollywood system and the critics circles that found the film way too cold, too cryptic and far too confusing for its own good. Also…
The Academy is also well aware that Portman, while a former nominee for THE CLOSER, has really done nothing prior (they DO remember STAR WARS and DON’T remember BEAUTIFUL GIRLS), and is certainly showing no signs in the near future of doing anything substantial with her career (a romantic comedy with Aston Kutcher? A slapstick film with James Franco about medieval times ala ROBIN HOOD MEN IN TIGHTS?) has given a fluke of a good performance.
Bening, regardless of whether or not most don’t think her hubby has the gumption or the clout to campaign effectively for the win, is a three time loser and NOW the sentimental favorite with a major player pusing her into the ring so she doesn’t have to suffer the embarrassment of a fourth loss, is playing a HOMOSEXUAL (something the Academy sees as DARING) and gave a performance that can be seen as decent and life affirming. Her performance is funny and quirky (something the Academy likes, think Diane Keaton in ANNIE HALL, Shirley MacLaine in TERMS OF ENDEARMENT or Helen Hunt in AS GOOD AS IT GETS) and balanced with high dramatics (again think of Shirley MacLaine in TERMS and Helen Hunt in AS GOOD) and she reaks of potential winner.
No, no, NO. If, indeed, there is a surprize, then look no further than the category of BEST ACTRESS.
Just think of the gasps and then cheers the audience in the pavilion ill burst into (something the Academy WANTS) if Bening’s name is pulled from the envelope.
Think about this hard, people, and it all becomes clear as to where the big surprize is coming from.
Bening, I really think, will scrape into the winners circle over Portman in the end.
Matter of fact, I’ll go one further…
BLACK SWAN was nominated for 5 Oscars?
It will win NOTHING by the time the Academy turns off the lights in the Awards pavillion.
The Academy nominated the film on the strength of its fandom, its decent reviews and the buzz it’s gotten off its controversy. BLACK SWAN is NOT the kind of flm the Academy feels good about. it will be, like GANGS OF NEW YORK, IN THE BEDROOM, GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK and others of high potential, shut out completely from the winners circles at the Oscars.
There, I’ve said it…
I disagree with you on Bening, Dennis. But if you turn out to be correct — you’ll have bragging rights for days!
“BLACK SWAN was nominated for 5 Oscars?…The Academy nominated the film on the strength of its fandom, its decent reviews and the buzz it’s gotten off its controversy.”
BAFTAwatch.com is relieved to say that BAFTAwatch.com does not exist so Dennis can’t go there and dismiss the 12 BAFTA nominations for Black Swan.
Good thing The Kings Speech doesn’t have any fans so its nominations can’t be attributed to fandom.