When the Academy Award nominations were unveiled last month, the news that Lakeith Stanfield, seemingly the lead actor in “
Judas and the Black Messiah,” was up for best supporting actor puzzled many of us, including Stanfield himself. He wrote on Instagram, “I’m confused too,” adding, “lmao”.
Warner Bros. campaigned for Stanfield in the best actor category, but academy voters treat that as a mere suggestion, not a mandate.
اضافة اعلان
This categorization pits Stanfield directly against his “Judas” co-star Daniel Kaluuya, the 20th time a film has scored multiple nominations for supporting actor. But does the fact that Stanfield’s role is arguably bigger than Kaluuya’s give him a leg up in the Oscar race?
The data from past Oscars can shed some light on this question — not just from the previous 19 times that two co-stars have appeared on the supporting actor list, but all 71 times it has happened in any acting category. In 48 of those instances, none of the nominees won the award, so they don’t help answer the question of whether bigger parts have an advantage. But the other 23 offer some insight.
Instances in which an actor or actress beat out a fellow cast member from the same film for an Oscar are not evenly distributed across categories. It has happened only six times in the supporting actor category, a dozen times with supporting actress and four times with best actor. Rarest of all is a best actress showdown between co-stars: Shirley MacLaine’s win over her “Terms of Endearment” colleague Debra Winger in 1984 remains the only time one lead actress from a film has topped another from that same film at the Academy Awards.
One film even managed to win an acting category in which it had three of the five nominations: “The Godfather Part II” (1974) provided a best supporting actor platform for Robert De Niro, who beat out fellow mobsters played by Michael V. Gazzo and Lee Strasberg.
To analyze whether the bigger part won, we first need to define the bigger part. There is no entirely objective way to do this, but one method is to look at billing order in the credits, on the assumption that bigger roles are often listed first.
Historically, the highest-billed actors won 17 of 23 matchups over their lower billed co-stars. If this suggests an academy preference for higher-billed actors, that’s a good sign for Kaluuya, whose name appears above Stanfield’s in the closing credits. But the very fact that Kaluuya appears ahead of Stanfield, arguably the movie’s primary character, is evidence that this method is not a perfect proxy for estimating an actor’s significance in a film.
Across all 168 supporting actor and actress races in Oscar history, 23 percent of nominees who were higher billed in their films than their four competitors won the category, while all other nominees sit at 18 percent. It’s not an enormous gap, but one that might suggest a slight voter preference for bigger roles. That too would favor Kaluuya, who could join Don Ameche (“Cocoon,” 1985); George Clooney (“Syriana,” 2005); and Patricia Arquette (“Boyhood,” 2014) as the only supporting winners to receive top billing in their films.
Another method of determining whether the size of the part matters to Oscar voters involves measuring how long they appear in their movies. Matthew Stewart of screentimecentral.com has performed the formidable task of watching every
The average screen time for the 23 winners who bested their co-stars is 34:57. For the 24 losers, it’s only 25:32. This does suggest that the academy leans toward honoring bigger parts when co-stars are up against each other.
At the Oscars, voters will face a choice: to bypass both for another of the hopefuls, go with the Black Panther Party state leader or opt for the FBI informant who betrayed him.
Read more
Entertainment.
.jpg)
.jpg)
