Oscar Acting Races: 5 Box Office Musings
Monday, January 26, 2015 at 11:42PM Manuel here to offer some random box office facts about the acting races. The big Oscar box office story continues to be American Sniper’s unprecedented success, so much so that Bradley Cooper garnered a shoutout last night at the SAG Awards despite not being nominated. I’m starting to feel the Best Picture category might not be the only three-way race as we wade deeper into Phase 2. Numbers and statistics junkie that I imagine myself to be, I was curious to see whether the past fifteen years’ worth of box office numbers in the acting categories could help us gleam anything about potential outcomes. Spoiler alert: not much, but enjoy the following random tidbits below.
As it stands, Bradley, Rosamund Pike, Robert Duvall (improbably, really) and Meryl Streep hold the title as the highest grossing nominees from their respective races. How might this help Bradley; well, let's take a look back at the box office history in the acting races.
- Did you know that the last three times Best Leading Actor went to the highest grossing film of the bunch it went to men winning their second (Tom Hanks) and third (Jack Nicholson, Daniel Day Lewis) Oscars?
- In stark contrast, headlining the biggest hit in the category usually helps you win* in the Best Leading Actress category (see: Jennifer Lawrence, Natalie Portman, Sandra Bullock, Reese Witherspoon, Hilary Swank, and Julia Roberts) and the Best Supporting Actress category (see: Octavia Spencer, Jennifer Hudson, Cate Blanchett, Renee Zellweger, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Jennifer Connelly). I’d come up with a random theory about this statistical anomaly where it not, like everything else below, most likely random happenstance.
*Or rather, the Oscar has statistically gone to the actress in the highest grossing film of the group.
All info collected from BoxOfficeMojo
- 2014 will be the first year since 2011 where Best Supporting Actor, a category that most often than not boasts the highest per film average of all four acting categories (usually bolstered by films like The Dark Knight in 2008, Lincoln & Django Unchained in 2012, and Chicago & Catch Me If You Can in 2002) will be the lowest grossing category among the acting races. And just as in 2011, when Christopher Plummer picked up a statuette for Beginners ($5,790,894) the lowest-grossing nominee will most likely walk away with the win.
- Unsurprisingly, averaging in the past fifteen years a little less than $50 million per film, Best Leading Actress is usually the lowest-grossing category among the acting nominees. Notice those two most recent upticks in the category in 2009 and 2013? You can thank one Ms Sandra Bullock for those.
- 2007 may account for the lowest averages for all acting categories, but 2005 is the last year where only one film nominated for an acting award crossed the $100 million threshold: Walk the Line. This year, out of 13 films nominated in these four categories, three films have accomplished this feat: Gone Girl, Into the Woods and American Sniper, with The Imitation Game looking likely to join them.
Reader Comments (37)
no
As improbable as it seems given the complete lack of precursor support, Cooper has to be considered a strong possibility at this point. Even people that don't like the film seem to admire the performance. There's no one they "owe" ala Moore in Best Actress, and just as it's seemed to help the movie overall, being last out of the gate has him soaking up most of the buzz/attention at this point, even while other guys are picking up awards.
Given the nature of the character and the performance, I wonder if Pike would be an actual threat if Gone Girl had come out in December? Even with Moore's narrative, she would've absolutely drowned everyone else in terms of buzz. It probably wouldn't have helped much with SAG, but it might've pushed her to a Globe win (and something of a race, rather than another coronation ceremony).
Cooper is actually starting to look like a possible upset. Marcia Gay Harden did win the Oscar without SAG/GG nods. Hate or love the film, but Cooper escapes unscathed and is further admired for his dedication to the craft. I still am hoping Keaton wins, and Redmayne is a threat, but Cooper could be the biggest Oscar upset in Best Actor since Adrien Brody defeated Nicholson and Day-Lewis.
Interesting that Best Actress is more likely to go to the highest-grossing film, but maybe it's because the films, overall, tend not to be such high grossers anyway?
In 2012, the acting winners all came from films making more than $100 million.
American Sniper could make $350 million or more; it's been a while since an acting nominee has been from a movie that big (even with adjusted totals). Cooper isn't a Winslet in a special effects vehicle, but went through a physical transformation and is the heart of his movie. IDK, applying the typical rules to this race seems a bit futile?
Cooper is terrific but does not deserve an Oscar. This should be Keaton's, and he shouldn't lose because Brad is in a huge hit.
I love when you talk stats.
I think the Best Actor race is wide open with Cooper, Keaton and Redmayne duking it out. Cooper has the advantage of a hit Broadway performance, being a producer of Sniper and people like him. He is a winner. You have to consider him a possibility.
BAFTA could throw another wrench in the mix if they go with Cumberbatch. They have seen him play Hawking (2005) and he was BAFTA nominated for the role--a lot depends on who they feel played it best. Plus, if the pardon of the 49.000 happens, it could give him a boost (Some of these people are still living and there are hundreds of thousands of relatives. The pardon will be world wide news if it happens or even if the campaign for the pardon picks up enough steam.). He has been a very vocal advocate about how unjust the government was to Turing. A win here would put him back in the race and really shake things up. Plus, TIG is the little film that could. It just keeps chugging along which will resonate nearly as much as Sniper's BO haul to people who consider that when voting.
This is a rare year for BAFTA. Three of the Best Actor noms are Brits (the last time this happened was 2002. It used to be more common before BAFTA moved to 5 nominees from 4 and decided to position itself as more than just a local film awards group.). If Fiennes wins, no real impact on AMPAS. If Cumberbatch wins, it opens everything up. If Redmayne wins, he coasts to Oscar. If Keaton wins, it's a photo finish. I don't think Jake has a shot unless the vote is split among the other nominees and it would have no impact on AMPAS anyway.
At this point, American Sniper's box office is the talk of the town, but there is no major buzz about Cooper's performance like there was about Swank's in Million Dollar Baby. Things can change over the next weeks, but at this point:
1) Redmayne (BAFTA will seal the deal)
2) Keaton (needs that BAFTA to recover from SAG – fat chance)
3) Cumberbatch (slow and steady wins the race...but unlikely this time)
4) Cooper (both too late & too soon)
5) Carrell (just like the Emmys)
I wanted Cooper to win last year in supporting for American Hustle, but not this year for the violent blockbuster.
Which is a bit like how I wanted Crowe to win for The Insider and then was unhappy when they gave it to him the following year for Gladiator.
Regarding Cooper as potential spoiler... I feel like some version of this theory/conversation comes around fairly often when an acting nominee shows up on Oscar's list without having been nominated anywhere else. For a hot minute in 2007 Laura Linney (for The Savages) was talked about as a "dark horse" contender to Cotillard/Christie; Max von Sydow in 2011 immediately assumed the role of most likely to spoil the clear frontrunner (Christopher Plummer). The magnitude of the surprise almost seems to suggest an inflated sense of support for contenders who often sneak through in crowded races. Keaton and Redmayne each have such demonstrated support through the season thus far I don't really think they're beatable. People point to Marcia Gay Harden in 2000 as an example of how it could happen, but Supporting Actress that year had no frontrunner. Hudson had the Globe, McDormand the Critics Choice, Dench the SAG, and Walters the BAFTA. A 4-way race (in which each contender holds a relatively smaller slice of the pie) is much easier to crack than a thus-far unassailable 2-way race.
This is my long way of saying that I don't doubt Cooper has his supporters. But I think he's more clearly Laura Linney and not Marcia Gay Harden this year.
At this time of the year, people start coming up with all kinds of "Can x win?" theories, because they're bored. For more than a decade now, there haven't been any real upsets in the acting categories. Even if one of the categories has been more open, no one has won without any precursor wins, let alone without any nominations. Cooper is probably this year's DiCaprio, who some thought could win last year.
...and I just remembered that DiCaprio actually won the Globe and also had a BAFTA nomination, even though he was also in a late-breaking movie. So, yeah, I don't think Cooper is a serious threat.
How much is the BAFTA really a factor here, though? SAG was a big boost but I always assumed BAFTA would plump for Redmayne or Cumberbatch. It adds more buzz to Redmayne if he wins, sure, but I don't think it automatically makes him an Oscar shoo-in because of the hometown factor. If Keaton nabs it, on the other hand, then that will be significant. As for Cooper ... no idea. I haven't seen the film but he doesn't seem to be the major focus so even though AMPAS loves him, I still see him as the third ranked contender.
Either way, it's fun to have a major category that stills feels like it's genuinely up in the air.
I'm guessing the BAFTA will go to Redmayne, although I'd love to see Gylenhall get it, to make up for the Oscar snub. After all, he got the BAFTA for best supporting actor back in the year of Broke Back Mountain even though he didn't get any other of the big precursor awards (that I can remember?).
I think we should prepare ourselves for American Sniper winning Best Picture and Bradley Cooper winning Best Actor.
There's a huge push from the rightwing conservative members of the Academy to honor a film that is gung-ho American and definitely anti-muslim.
I will amend my predictions accordingly. The Birdman vs Boyhood contest now has a very real third threat.
And if American Sniper does a 'Crash' - this could be the end of the Oscars.
What is happening in America right now? The Grammys were virtually all white and now the Oscars are following suit.
American Sniper is anti-Muslim? How so? On what basis do you conclude that? It's a true story about a man in the military in a conflict overseas. It could've been anywhere and told the same story.
And I'd point to the distributors of Selma (and their woefully late, haphazard release strategy) for, at least in part, the whiter-than-average Oscar field as much as AMPAS. It was so-o-o poorly handled they simply should've held it back and released it properly this year.
Anyway, I hope Keaton scoops it, which would be well deserved, but I too fear he may go the way of previous best-of-the-lot also-rans: Bill Murray (Lost in Translation), Mickey Rourke (The Wrestler), Chiwetel Ejiofor (12 Years a Slave), etc.
Mareko - You can't blame one film's distributor for an all-white Oscar lineup. Selma was not the only film produced by Black artists with performances by Black actors. The issue is AMPAS's general reluctance to consider people of color's contributions to film in 2014; films made for Black audiences or by Black people are much less likely to be given the "prestige" status that is necessary for Oscar consideration. Smaller budgets (which exist because producers still don't believe films with Black creators/casts can make money) are used to count a film out as "too small"; subject matter that has nothing to do with tortured geniuses or WWII signifies a film that "isn't serious enough". It's a systemic issue, not just that one distributor for one film didn't step up to the plate.
Others who missed Oscar nominations and/or were maybe never seriously considered:
Teyonah Parris & Tessa Thompson - Dear White People
Chadwick Boseman & Nelsan Ellis & Viola Davis - Get On Up
Gugu Mbatha-Raw - Belle & Beyond the Lights
Tyler Perry - Gone Girl
Chris Rock - Top Five
Regina Hall - About Last Night
Octavia Spencer - Snowpiercer
I consider Arkin's win in 2006 an upset, even though he had won the BAFTA. That was a shocker on Oscar night.
If anything, American Sniper (grossing more than 3 times any of the other nominees) winning BP will do the opposite of ending the Oscars.
"I wonder if Pike would be an actual threat if Gone Girl had come out in December? Even with Moore's narrative, she would've absolutely drowned everyone else in terms of buzz."
Doubt it. I think that the film did so well because it opened earlier when there wasn't as much going on. I think there still would've been some attention, but not to the same degree. It would've been cluttered.
"American Sniper is anti-Muslim? How so? On what basis do you conclude that? It's a true story about a man in the military in a conflict overseas."
Nope. Look into it. As with any true happening turned into a film, there was liberty taken in the writing process and many things were exaggerated or downplayed. Also, the real sniper himself stands for disgusting things if you read some of the quotes from his autobiography, calling the native people savages or animals, and saying he doesn't regret it, he only wishes he killed more.
Anyway...
I could actually see Bradley winning. I still hope it's Michael Keaton, but I could see him and Eddie splitting and Bradley coming through. People compare it to other scenarios, but this is much different with no precursor nominations and the huge abnormal box office, plus his third (and fourth) nomination in three years.
Bradley definitely has a chance. He has numerous support in the industry that helped him get nominated in the first place in one of the toughest Best Actor years in recent memory.
At some point the Oscars were going to have a case where in little precursor support, mainly because a lot of these critics/industry nominations start way too early and studios are getting later and later with released, was going to have a case a performance could win without them.
Cumberbatch is hurt by Redmayne. No doubt a lot of the Brits at the Academy likely will follow BAFTA's lead and have more behind The Theory of Everything than The Imitation Game. Plus, Redmayne's going over time in campaigning and Cumberbatch isn't.
Cooper is helped by the fact it is transformative role and largely his story plus a previous, recent nominee, going on his third consecutive nomination. Also, let's face it, American Sniper was seen as a great hit for him, but nobody saw it making this kind of money. No way. It would make sense for the fact in this expanded field era that certain 'rules' and 'expectations' in what can happy at the Oscars are made to be subverted and re-defined. We could very well have a third consecutive Director/Picture split, for example. An acting win with little precursor support doesn't feel that out of the realm.
"And if American Sniper does a 'Crash' - this could be the end of the Oscars."
Because that happened when Sgt. York, a pretty easy American Sniper analogue, won Best Picture years ago too. And those WWII films that won while there was actual internment of Japanese-Americans in the US. Acting like all of those decades of the Oscars weren't as problematic and hypocritical as now, speaking only to a very limited subset of America, is ignoring the history of the Academy awards. Plenty of war pictures have won and let's not act like the lot of them don't have similar problems as American Sniper has.
American Sniper as a BP winner isn't happening, however. Again, I think it is more like The Pianist example. It will be a threat to win in a few major categories to the point of scaring a few people awards night, but it is still a Birdman vs. Boyhood race. Crash had a lot of precursor support prior to its upset win. If there's a Crash of this race, it is Birdman.
RJ- A lot of those films aren't 'awards films'. Even 'off the map' films like Gone Girl and Inherent Vice struggled to get nominations this year and believe, me I'd take Tyler Perry or Josh Brolin over Robert Duvall's silly, misguided nomination that Oscar bloggers pushed since the fall any day.
Distributors do matter. I doubt The Grand Budapest Hotel gets the nominations it did without a smart studio like Fox Searchlight. Paramount was incredibly dumb this year. For months they kept on insisting that Interstellar was their #1 horse and it took a delayed response by them after AFI Fest to realize they should've pushed Selma sooner and harder. But they flushed away a lot of campaign cash for Interstellar. They thought they had another Gravity on their hands and they blew it.
Why BAFTA matters this year is the home town stamp of approval. Two of the three Brtis are playing British heroes and if one of them wins, it sends a signal. If Keaton wins, it also sends a signal. If Cumberbatch wins, Harvey will make hay of it.
Blergh. Minor correction. Sgt. York didn't win Best Picture. Did win Gary Cooper a Best Actor Oscar and won for Editing and was nominated for Picture.
CMG - I totally get what you're saying about Paramount miscalculating their awards prospects this season, and don't disagree. They didn't jump off that sinking Interstellar ship until too late, and really didn't have a finished Selma to work with until impossibly late in the game. Their hands were tied, but waiting a year wouldn't have guaranteed anything either.
But the point I was trying to make was about the very definition of 'awards film' as you call it. The subtext there is that an 'awards film' does not have a Black actor in a leading role, is not primarily about Black characters' journeys and storeis, is not a comedy, is not 'urban' in sensibility, etc. The fact that the films I listed weren't going to get nominations no matter the distributor IS the problem. I think we're making similar points. The issue I have is with the idea that the ENTIRE lack of diversity in the acting nominations is the fault of the ONE distributor on the ONE project white AMPAS members/bloggers/etc deemed "acceptable" as an awards contender. The reason for lack of representation in those categories is the system that effectively disqualified all those other contenders before the starting gun even fired on the race.
"American Asshole" (Sniper, excuse me) is anti-human; it's one-dimensional, it's Right Vs Wong; We're Smart VS You're Stupid; it's the Mount Everest of ignorance; some critics will excuse themselves with the following:
"oh, please, please; we're estimating this film on the basis of its cinematic values alone"
Clint Eastwood makes a film about a guy who had the crystal clear ambition to go to a place and kill "savages"; this asshole's dream was fulfilled, and he managed to kill women and children too. God, what an amazing film! It's critically acclaimed, and a box-office giant, so this means it's good! Bradley Cooper was so believable! And we need to understand that behind every monster there is a human being.
RJ and CMG - you both make the same (correct) point. However, RJ, your (fully warranted) attack is in a different direction to RJ's - they were simply saying that Selma was a 'black' film that ticked all of the Academy voter boxes and, had Paramount not messed up, would have scored nominations for Du Vernay and Oyelowo (with Ejogo a possibility). And, if that had happened, everyone would be celebrating that even more progress was being made (first black female director, two more hugely capable actors added to Hollywood's radar for roles beneath their talent). So, Paramount are hugely responsible for the all-white line-up and a danger that this will be seen as a 'blip' in Oscars history.
However, your point is equally pertinent but bigger in scope - why don't studios carry more than one 'black' film at a time? Why don't they believe that there's room for multiple successes in one year? Why don't the studios make prestige pieces (Tier One of 'Oscar Films') with black leads, unless they're to re-examine the Civil Rights movement? I don't think you'll find anyone at the Film Experience who doesn't share your anger.
Lastly, I think that we all sometimes need a refresher of the (sad) truth of how acting contenders stack up pre-nominations. Their films fall into the following categories and, only when it is perceived that contenders have failed in the category above, do contenders from the category below appear -
1) Prestige American Cinema
2) Prestige British Cinema
3) American Independent Cinema
4) World Cinema
The success of Miramax has always been in taking films and performances from Tiers 2 and 3, then 'repackaging' them as Tier 1.
Kermit: And 5) Tentpole Cinema?
"I could actually see Bradley winning. I still hope it's Michael Keaton, but I could see him and Eddie splitting and Bradley coming through."
Philip H.: Which voters exactly would Redmayne and Keaton be "splitting," as their films and roles don't have much in common? If you're looking at it in terms of percentages, it would be more like Redmayne (25%), Keaton (25%), Cumberbatch (20%), Cooper (20%), Carell (10%)...roughly.
If anything, I'd say Redmayne and Cumberbatch are splitting the Brit/genius/biopic/30-something vote. Or: Cumberbatch is siphoning votes away from Redmayne, just as Cooper and Carell are siphoning them away from Keaton.
One thing against Cooper winning is that war movies do not win acting Oscars. From Here to Eternity doesn't count, since combat doesn't figure into the story till the end. I don't count Guiness or Paxinou because their films can only loosely be considered war movies. Same with Patton. Renner and Hanks lost the Best Actor race. Cooper ain't gonna get it.
In addition to what Paul has posted (which I agree with), if Redmayne takes BAFTA, much of that support for Cumberbatch will switch to Redmayne and the percentages will move to Red-35%, Kea-25%, Coop-20%, Cumb-15%, Car-5% (I don't think there is any support for Carell. The nomination was the honor in his case.). On the other hand, if Cumberbatch takes BAFTA (which I am beginning to doubt baring some big development). the percentages would be more Red, Kea, Cumb-25% each, Coop-20%, Car-5%.
OT: The new Fantastic Four trailer has dropped. It's as bad as we were fearing.
I have said since very early in the season that Actor was going to be the unclear category. There has never been a clear frontrunner, even if it looked like Keaton was ahead. The SAG winner makes things even more confusing for me. People are talking about the diseased character trope being a frequent winner, but - in both lead categories? I would think Redmayne's too young, but if he's not too young to win SAG over Keaton, he's not too young for Oscar.
Is Cooper possible? His movie was a late player so who knows if enough Globe/SAG voters had seen it. It's peaking right now, and they're seeing it. (If it had debuted early, we might be talking about an Eastwood Director upset - glad we don't have to deal with that, since he didn't make the cut.) Also, three nominations in a row doesn't mean he's due in the slightest, but it absolutely means he's a name they'd be more than comfortable writing down. So yeah, it's possible.
I almost wonder if it's between Redmayne and Cooper now. I am so surprised by that Keaton loss, but he was in Comedy at the Globes. Obviously they're not falling all over themselves to reward him. He's my favorite in the category, so I'm a little disappointed. Any of these three guys might be the only win for their film, though. So... I can see why smart money's on Redmayne, but I'm thinking yeah, it might be Cooper. (Cumberbatch would only happen because of Harvey, which shouldn't be discounted either.)
Another thought as soon as I posted - even if Keaton doesn't have the actors' majority, is it possible that he's worked on so many films that other groups might come through for him? This might also have been a factor in Meryl vs. Viola or Penn vs. Rourke. Just a thought.
A Gyllenhaal-Fiennes tie at the BAFTAs would be ideal for the suspense (and deserved)...but a Keaton win would be reassuring (to me, anyway).
"Clint Eastwood makes a film about a guy who had the crystal clear ambition to go to a place and kill "savages"; this asshole's dream was fulfilled, and he managed to kill women and children too."
Eastwood considers his film anti-war. Given his war pictures, and given how we see Cooper's Kyle react to the situations in American Sniper, I don't see giddiness. I see damage and pain. I think Eastwood is sympathetic to those in Kyle's situation.
Kermit- I'm not sure if you were talking to me or RJ or in the first paragraph. Especially because nobody really 'attacked' anybody.
RJ- You're right in the sense, in a year with 12 Years a Slave, why not also Fruitvale Station and The Butler? Why not Top Five (another Paramount property completely wronged and miscalculated by the studio) in addition to Selma? Top Five may have gross-out, broad comedy, but when stuff like The Hangover can win Comedy Globe, surely it could have had nominations with that body?
My issues with the Academy are often middle-brow taste that portends to be sophisticated. Lack of diversity is one of its many issues. Not just in the fact white AMPAS members only have room for one but that the reaction I am seeing about AMPAS diversity issues falls largely on black films, black filmmakers, and black performances and the lack of their representation. People of color is a bigger term that means more minorities than just black. Hispanics are the largest minority group in the country and their representation on the screen with films that reflect their lives still don't get mainstream treatment. There are certainly issues bigger than just Paramount's poorly done campaign and perhaps the lesson is to not put all your eggs in the basket for one film as the 'represents all minorities' film. There's also the fact I think something like Dear White People has stronger legs than a good number of nominees and that it is AMPAS' own fault that they confuse biopic with important and not realize that these films' imprint on the culture will evaporate once the Oscars are over. Anyway, I'm rambling. But I get you, RJ. But I also think AMPAS are too predictable for their own good to expect inspired picks.
Eastwood needn't be sympathetic to those in Kyle's situation. Kyle's situation is as follows: "I'm determined to go to the Middle East and kill savages."; eventually Kyle is killed by a person as psychotic as himself, oh God, what a pity... but you know, he's such an American hero and so on! Oh God, he also had a family (while killing other people's family members) ...
" "American Sniper” lionizes the most despicable aspects of U.S. society—the gun culture, the blind adoration of the military, the belief that we have an innate right as a “Christian” nation to exterminate the “lesser breeds” of the earth, a grotesque hyper masculinity that banishes compassion and pity, a denial of inconvenient facts and historical truth, and a belittling of critical thinking and artistic expression. Many Americans, especially white Americans trapped in a stagnant economy and a dysfunctional political system, yearn for the supposed moral renewal and rigid, militarized control the movie venerates. These passions, if realized, will extinguish what is left of our now-anemic open society."
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/01/26/killing-ragheads-jesus-watching-american-sniper
Yes. It's 2002 all over again. Split votes between Keaton and Redmayne give Cooper the win. Those who will champion Cooper will REALLY push for him - I don't see that happening with the other nominees.
Nope.