Oscar Category Fraud, By the Numbers
Sunday, March 22, 2020 at 7:00PM by Eric Blume
A few days ago, my fellow TFE writer Claudio flagged a website www.screentimecentral.com, which tracks the screen time and percentage of all Oscar nominees and winners. Because Oscar category fraud has long been a heated debate here at the site, I thought it might be fun to play with the numbers on the site from the last 20 Oscars, to see what we might discover if, say, AMPAS instituted a time/percentage rule on who could be eligible for lead and supporting performances.
Now for those about to go crazy in the comments, settle down. This is just a fun game. We’re not suggesting there should be an implemented rule, but for the sake of stirring up a healthy, positive conversation, I’ve broken down some of the numbers, and it reveals a lot of interesting things...
One fun way to look at screen time and lead/supporting categories is to go from the percentage of screen time the actors get. This reminds you how much extra plot and character development any film must devote away from even the most lead-driven pictures. For example, it’s interesting to note that even in films where the lead seems to be “almost every frame of the movie” there’s still a lot of screen percentage lost (Timothee Chalamet is only in 83% of Call Me By Your Name; Michael Fassbender in 81% of Steve Jobs; Isabelle Huppert in 84% of Elle; Reese Witherspoon in 88% of Wild, etc.).
Therefore, it feels not right to split the leading and supporting categories to 50% over or 50% under the percentage of screen time. So I’ve taken a look to see how the categories over the last twenty years might have looked if to be eligible for Best Actor/Actress, you had to be in over 40% of the film’s running time, and to be eligible for Best Supporting Actor/Supporting Actress, you had to appear in less than 40% of the film’s running time.
BEST ACTOR
We have eight nominees since 2000 who appeared in less than 40% of the film’s running time (percentages are rounded up or down from the site):
- Geoffrey Rush, in 30% of Quills
- Daniel Day-Lewis, in 29% of Gangs of New York
- Johnny Depp, in 34% of Pirates of the Caribbean
- Sean Penn, in 34% of Mystic River (the winner)
- Forest Whittaker, in 34% of The Last King of Scotland (the winner)
- Morgan Freeman, in 35% of Invictus
- Hugh Jackman, in 37% of Les Miserables
- Steve Carell, in 39% of Foxcatcher
Excepting Rush and Day-Lewis, these numbers are very close to 40%, and they all do feel like lead performances. Since Penn and Whittaker’s victories, no winner has come close to so low a percentage number (the closest were Day-Lewis for Lincoln, in 51%; and Jean Dujardin for The Artist, in 58%). But nobody here feels like they should have been nominated in the supporting category. Would you agree?
BEST ACTRESS
We’d have fifteen nominees who appeared in less than 40% of their film’s running times:
- Ellen Burstyn, in 35% of Requiem for a Dream
- Joan Allen, in 36% of The Contender
- Sissy Spacek, in 30% of In the Bedroom
- Nicole Kidman, in 21% of The Hours (the winner)
- Samantha Morton, in 29% of In America
- Reese Witherspoon, in 34% of Walk the Line (the winner)
- Meryl Streep, in 26% of The Devil Wears Prada
- Kate Winslet, in 33% of Little Children
- Kate Winslet, in 34% of The Reader
- Helen Mirren, in 34% of The Last Station
- Viola Davis, in 32% of The Help
- Rooney Mara, in 39% of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
- Jessica Chastain, in 37% of Zero Dark Thirty
- Amy Adams, in 36% of American Hustle
- Rosamund Pike, in 38% of Gone Girl
The two truly surprising numbers for me here were Spacek and Streep, because their performances are so vibrant and powerful in those films, and they feel like they’re in much more of their respective pictures. Much press was written about how the three actresses in The Hours and how they would be submitted (Julianne Moore, in the supporting category, was in 24% of the movie, four minutes more than lead Nicole). While winners Kidman and Witherspoon had relatively little screen time, the three winners who had the most screen time are Natalie Portman, in 83% of Black Swan; Julianne Moore, in 80% of Still Alice; and Julia Roberts, in 73% of Erin Brockovich). Having even more screen time are nominees Charlotte Rampling, in 91% of 45 Years, and Marion Cotillard, in 89% of Two Days, One Night…which seems fitting as they are both towering pieces of acting where the entire picture works or doesn’t on their shoulders.
For the supporting categories, we go the other direction.
SUPPORTING ACTOR
There are twelve Supporting Actor nominees who appear in MORE than 40% of their movie:
- Jim Broadbent, in 43% of Iris (the winner)
- Ethan Hawke, in 61% of Training Day
- Thomas Haden Church, in 48% of Sideways
- Jamie Foxx, in 54% of Collateral
- Jake Gyllenhaal, in 43% of Brokeback Mountain
- Djimon Hounsou, in 41% of Blood Diamond
- Woody Harrelson, in 48% of The Messenger
- Christian Bale, in 44% of The Fighter (the winner)
- Phillip Seymour Hoffman, in 47% of The Master
- Christoph Waltz, in 40% of Django Unchained (the winner)
- Sylvester Stallone, in 44% of Creed
- Mahershala Ali, in 52% of Green Book (the winner)
Here’s where it gets arguable. The three biggest percentages (Hawke, Foxx, and Ali) do feel like co-lead performances. But most of the others feel right in this category, most of them having a lead actor or actress whose story they are clearly supporting while still having their own. While Christian Bale is the winner with the most screen time, winners with the least screen time are Alan Arkin, in 14% of Little Miss Sunshine; and Benicio del Toro and Mark Rylance, each in 17% of Traffic and Bridge of Spies, respectively). Del Toro’s number in particular is interesting, as he won Best Actor at the SAG Awards that year! There are quite a few gentlemen nominated for less than 10% total screen time in this category, most notably Sam Elliot with less than 7% of dazzling time for A Star is Born.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
We have only six who appear in more than 40% of their movies:
- Cate Blanchett, in 56% of Notes on a Scandal
- Hailee Stanfield, in 55% of True Grit
- Julia Roberts, in 47% of August: Osage County
- Alicia Vikander, in 50% of The Danish Girl (the winner)
- Rooney Mara, in 60% of Carol
- Emma Stone, in 48% of The Favourite
These performances all feel like leads. Meryl was in less (44%) of her movie with Julia, and Jeff Bridges, nominated for Best Actor for True Grit, was in 45% of it. Cate was in Carol for 55%, less time than Mara. Two performances that made it just under the 40% gun were Jennifer Hudson, in 39.6% of Dreamgirls and Viola Davis, in 38.6% of Fences... if either had been in the background of one or two other scenes, they’d be listed here.
The Favourite is somewhat of a unique case, and its Oscar placements have been the talk of much debate. But looking at the numbers, Emma is in 48%; Olivia in 42%; and Rachel in 36%. It’s said that the Emma and Rachel deferred to Olivia on where she wanted to be placed, and when she went for Best Actress, they both submitted for Supporting.
This article included a lot of numbers, but I hope it was still some fun reading. Did any numbers surprise you?
Reader Comments (55)
What about Helen Hunt in The Sessions ? I remember when i saw the film, i really felt SHE was the lead and one of the biggest category frauds that year (Julia Roberts in August's style) ... Is she really in less than 40% of the movie ?
This is such a insightful article n an interesting topic!! 👍
Makes one wonder:
1) In 2002, had Nicole agreed to go supp for The Hours, she wld've been nom over Julianne's slot n won over CZJ. Meryl wld've been nom for The Hours n Renee wld've won for Chicago, thus thr will be no make up win the following yr n Pat Clarkson might hav won best supp for Pieces o April or Shohren Aghdasloo for House o Sand n Fog.
2) In 2015, had Vikander been correctly nom in Lead Actress, Winslet wld've won for Steve Jobs n KStew in Clouds o Sils Maria or Vikander in Ex Machina wld've taken the freed up slot. JLaw wld've likely been pushed off fr Lead actress.
Same yr, had Rooney Mara oso been correctly nom for Lead, then i tink Charlotte Rampling wld've omitted for 45 years, so its kinda o a blessing in disguise??
3) In 2018, had Venice awarded a 3-way win to The Favourite ladies, Colman might not hav insisted on going Lead, n Emma wld've been pushed to Lead instead n Glenn Close wld've finally won for The Wife. Had Colman n Weisz both went supp, Colman wld've won over Regina King.
I love this stuff. Good work!
clement --- yeah, i definitely think she's a lead (and nominated her as such right here). but i guess he has a lot of scenes without her as well.
It's interesting how often from the jump Supporting Actor had fraud or at the very least very large supporting roles being consistently nominated.